Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Assessment HEI 2006
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Assessment HEI 2006

1,681
views

Published on


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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,681
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Report 2006Assessment of public universities and their faculties © ARRA, Bratislava 2006
  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  • 18. 4 Basic characteristics of the indicators and their classification into groups domain) and this is one of the duties of their employmentThe indicators that ARRA uses are classified in a number under the Higher Education Act20.of materially compact groups. For purposes of clarity, thissection lists the basic characteristics of the individual VV5indicators and classifies them into groups. The names ofthe groups provide sufficient explanation of why a given The annual average number of PhD graduates in theindicator belongs in its group. A more detailed analysis of period 2003 – 2005 divided by the number of professorsthe indicators along with values for individual faculties is in and associate professors in 2005. Since the number ofthe part 7.18 graduates fluctuates from year to year, it has been necessary to expand the time scale for the collection of these data. As a baseline we took the minimum length of4.1 “Science and Research” full time PhD study under applicable legislation, i.e., 3 years.Category VV6 The proportion of the number of PhD students in full time4.1.1 “Publications and Citations” study to the total number of students studying full time inGroup 2005.VV1Number of scientific articles19 in proportion to the number 4.1.3 “Grant Success” Groupof creative workers (CW), i.e. teachers and researchers VV7and artistic employees with higher education, in periodicalsregistered in the WoK database for the years 1996 – 2005. Overall grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker.VV2 VV8Number of citations in proportion to the number of CW. Itreflects the intellectual strength of a higher education Funding from AR (applied research), ISTC (internationalinstitution relative to its size. Only citations of papers scientific and technical cooperation), and APVV (Slovakincluded in VV1 are counted. Citations of papers published Research and Development Agency) grants per creativein or before 1995 will not be included. The decisive factor worker.is whether the given work appeared in the database as at VV931 December 2005. A new criterion. Funds from foreign grants included in theVV2a report on higher education for 2005 issued by the MinistryA new criterion. Number of citations per publication. This of Education, and from state programmes, the grants notis a standard indicator reflecting the response of a paper in being strictly linked to examination of independentthe relevant scientific community but also the impact of scientific capacity and their purpose not necessarily beingthe publication on scientific development in the given field. research.VV3 VV10The number of papers published in the years 1996 – 2005, Funds from grants examined by experts (i.e., grants fromfor which more than 5 citations had been registered by 31 schemes in criteria VV7 and VV8) per creative worker.December 2005, divided by the number of CW in thefaculty.VV3a 4.2 “Study and Education”A new criterion. The number of papers published in the Category21years 1996 – 2005, for which more than 25 citations hadbeen registered by 31 December 2005, divided by thenumber of CW in the faculty. 4.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group SV14.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group The number of students in full- and part-time study divided by the number of teachers. Points are awarded soVV4 that the lower the number of students per teacher the higher the number of points.The ratio of the number of PhD students in full time studyto the number of professors and associate professors. As arule, associate professors and professors supervise PhDstudents (and a small number of holders of scientific ranksIIa and I, about whom there is no information in the public 20 Act No. 131/2002 on Higher Education amending and supplementing certain laws as amended. 21 Where students are referred to in this category of indicators, unless otherwise indicated, it refers to students in all programmes studying both full and part time. Students are considered with the18 Unless stated otherwise, information given relates to 2005. same weight, although the Ministry of Education, for their purposes,19 The terms publication and citation hereafter refer to publications converts these figures using the coefficient 0.3 for part-time studyfrom the stated database and citation in papers included in it. and coefficient 2 for PhD study. 18
  • 19. programmes administered by the SAIA agency, of the total number of students of the institution. This information isSV2 not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as aThe number of students studying full and part time divided whole.by the number of professors and associate professors.Points are awarded in the same way as for indicator SV1.SV3 4.3 “Financing” CategoryThe proportion of teachers with PhD to the total number of F1teachers. It is assumed that every professor and associate Costs of the higher education institution’s main activitiesprofessor in a functional position has a PhD. per one student of the institution. The last year’s criterion (running costs per one student) could not be used withSV4 respect to the absence of data. This information is notThe ratio of teachers with PhD to the total number of included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it isteachers. available only for the higher education institution as a whole.SV5 F2The average age of active professors. Points are assignedso that the “youngest” faculty in a group gets 100 points The proportion of the result of the university’s businessand the remaining faculties are assigned points inversely activities to the overall costs of its main activities. Thisproportionally to the average age of their professors. The indicator reflects the proportion of the teaching andterm active professor refers to any person who occupies research expenditure that the institution is able to coverthe functional position of a professor within the meaning from its own business activities. This information is notof the law22. included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as a whole.4.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group F3SV6 The proportion of funds from public grants (VEGA, KEGA,Admission proceedings: the number of applications AR, APVV, MVTS, state programmes, and internationalsubmitted to the planned number to be admitted, i.e. the grants) to the overall costs of the higher educationnumber of applications to study divided by the number of institution’s main activities. This indicator shows what partstudy places offered by the faculty. of teaching and research expenditure the institution is able to gain through the active efforts of its employees in freeSV7 competition for public funds made available to supportAdmission proceedings: number of registered students to research and development. In comparison with the lastthe number of applicants accepted, i.e. the number of year, state programmes and international grants wereapplicants registered divided by the number of places added, data on which were previously unavailable. Thisoffered for study. information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher educationSV8 institution as a whole.Number of students with foreign state citizenship dividedby the total number of students studying full time.4.2.3 “University Level Criteria” GroupSV9Proportion of graduates unemployed for longer than 3months of the total number of university graduates in2005. The data are as at September 2006. Thisinformation is not included in the final assessment of thefaculty (is available only for the university as a whole).ARRA slightly modified the assessment methodology takinginto consideration all graduates unemployed for longerthan 3 months rather than 6 months as in 2005. Thereason is the higher total number of such graduates andtherefore a higher informative value of such figures. Sincein Slovakia, virtually all university graduates findemployment, it is useful to look at the speed at which theysucceed in doing so at individual education institutions.From this aspect, also the last year’s data were calculatedfor comparison.SV10Proportion of students taking part in study abroad throughthe Socrates EC programme and using scholarship22 Act No. 131/2002 on Higher Education amending andsupplementing certain laws as amended. 19
  • 20. 5 Method for the assessment of faculties and universities followed by the number of points corresponding to this The indicators listed in Chapter 5 have been selected to number in this group (calculated as the value in the fourth ensure that a higher score corresponds to higher column divided by the highest value in the fourth column performance. An exception is the special cases of SV1, SV2 multiplied by one hundred and rounded to a whole and SV5, where this is vice versa. For example, one of the number).23 The next step is to combine the values for indicators is the number of students to one professor or indicators VV1, VV2, VV2a, VV3, and VV3a into summary associate professor. The higher this number is, the less values for the “Publications and Citations” indicator group likely it is that professors and associate professors can give (see Table 7). individual attention to students. From the perspective of individual approach, which ARRA considers to be most Table 7: Assignment of scores for the “Publications beneficial for students, it is better if this indicator has a and Citations” indicator group (VV1, VV2, VV2a, lower value. The number of students includes both full and part time students. The diploma of part-time students is VV3, VV3a) for faculties in the AGRO group Faculty VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Points equivalent to that of full-time students. The quality of University of Veterinary Medicine 100 95 37 100 90 85 education of both should be the same, therefore both full- Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences 96 100 100 81 0 76 time and part-time students should receive the same SPU Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen 25 40 61 42 100 54 amount of teachers’ effort and time, even if in different Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources 28 11 16 7 0 12 forms. SPU Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology 19 7 14 2 0 8 TU Zvolen The faculty that scored the highest (best) in a Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape 6 2 10 3 0 4 Engineering SPU particular indicator is assigned 100 points. The other faculties receive points directly proportionally, with zero The first five columns show the number of points points being assigned to a zero value. that each of the faculties gained in the “Publications and Citations” indicator group. The last column shows the Each faculty of each university is assessed in the number of points calculated as the average of all the group to which it was assigned in Chapter 4.2. The overall indicators belonging to the group. The values in this ranking of faculties in each group depends on the average column are transferred to the final assessment of the point scores in the groups of indicators. faculties in the group and the overall assessment of the universities. The overall ranking of universities is based on the average point scores of their faculties. Details are given in A few more notes need to be given on this scheme later chapters. for the assessment of faculties. As a new feature, tables are included showing the 1. The most significant information is given in Table 6. ranking of faculties within individual indicators. They are This informs us the number of publications from the always given after an indicator group. faculty for the 1996 – 2005 period. This number can be compared with foreign institutions or institutes of SAV (the Slovak Academy of Sciences) working in the same area24. 5.1 Illustration of the 2. The measure of faculties’ success in a given indicator method for the assessment is the most successful Slovak faculty in the relevant group rather than a benchmark from abroad. of faculties and universities Therefore it is the relevant data from the tables that need to be compared rather than the point score. An example for illustration purposes may be the indicator 3. In the ideal scenario, the analysis would go even VV1 (number of publications per creative worker) and the deeper and instead of faculties as a whole we would AGRO faculty group (which covers a relatively small assess, and compare with each other and with foreign number of faculties (six); for other groups and further groups, relatively homogenous groups within the indicators, see the summary of results). faculty corresponding approximately to fields of studies. Such an analysis cannot currently be performed using data in the public domain. It is Table 6: Values of indicator VV1 for faculties in the however ARRA’s ambition for the future to assess also AGRO group individual study programmes in similar/related areas. Faculty Creative Publications Ratio Point workers sUniversity of Veterinary Medicine 182 601 3,30 100Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen 56,6 72 1,27 96Faculty of Biotechnology and 163,6 153 0,94 28Food Sciences SPUFaculty of Agrobiology and Food 82,3 69 0,84 25Resources SPUFaculty of Wood Sciences and 122 78 0,64 19Technology TU ZvolenFaculty of Horticulture and 66,4 13 0,20 6Landscape Engineering SPU 23 It should be noted that the point scores for the SPU Faculty of The first column contains the name of the faculty, Biotechnological and Food Sciences established in 2002 are the second column contains the number of creative calculated reflecting the compensated number of publications per creative worker, that is, (10/4) * (1.27) = 3.19. workers, the third column gives number of publications in 24 Comparison of the outputs in the field of research and the WoK database for 1996 – 2005. The next column has development by the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) institutes the number of publications for each creative worker and certain faculties of public higher education institutions, November 2006, www.arra.sk. 20
  • 21. 6 Commentary on individual indicators Table 8: Number of papers for the years 1996 –ARRA is pleased to conclude that in nearly all parameters 2005 per one creative workerand for most of the faculties, an improvement occurred.Although this improvement is not a dramatic one, yet itshows positive trends in the development of the Slovak Group Publications 1996-2005higher education system. One could accept the opinion per creative workerthat data from only two years of research is not sufficientlyconclusive, that is, in many cases, it may involve naturalfluctuations, or it may involve the influence of low figures. TECH 0,0 – 7,6 NAT 0,1 – 6,0On the other hand, however, it is true that if almost all AGRO 0,2 – 3,3parameters move in the same direction, the overall MED 1,0 – 3,7development will also be positive with a great probability. SOC 0,0 – 1,3 HUM 0,0 – 0,5 In the foreground, the graphs show data used inthe current assessment; in the background, there are lastyear’s data for comparison in grey for each faculty. Redlines in the graphs indicate average values in the current A number of faculty employees, especially in theyear; grey dotted line shows the average in the last year. groups SOC and HUM, often publish their work inThe legend in the graphs relates to the year, in which the periodicals that are not included in the WoK database. Thisfigure was used in the assessment (2005 – used last year, especially discriminates the faculties of arts, whose2006 – used this year). The data in graphs for two outputs do not include only scientific publications butfaculties may slightly differ also in the case that the same particularly high-quality works of art26. Nevertheless, thevalue is indicated for both – the number is rounded to ARRA analysis includes only papers from the WoKfewer decimal places for clarity. database. The reasons for this are as follows (see also note 14): • the WoK database is in the public domain, which is in6.1 Science and research accordance with the principle of using data in the public domain, • the inclusion of a journal in the WoK database6.1.1 “Publications and citations” Group provides a certain guarantee of quality, since inclusion is based on an assessment of the level ofVV1 Number of scientific publications and the published articles, the history of the periodicalnumber of creative workers and the like, • the WoK database is a source of bibliographic dataThe scientific performance of individual faculties can be that is recognised by the general academicassessed in various ways. Around the world, the most community,widely recognised approach is to use the number of • the WoK database is available from any location inpublications, citations, major awards, ability to obtain the world and the data it contains can be comparedresearch funding in open competition. The VV1 criterion is internationally,based on the number of publications calculated for one • in each group of faculties there are faculties thatcreative worker (CW) in the time period 1996 to 2005, i.e., have publications in the WoK database, which shows10 years. The term creative worker refers to all teachers that it is possible to publish in periodicals that are inas well as research and artistic employees of the faculty this database; the fears of discrimination in somewith higher education. A publication is any work that is faculties and fields of study are reduced by the factrecorded in the WoK database for the ten-year period that they are compared only within their own group1996 – 2005. and with faculties that have the same or a similar orientation, A paper is included in the ARRA analysis if at least • assessments of universities and social sciences inone of its authors is an employee of a faculty of a public other countries27 are based on similar principles ofuniversity in the SR25. The ARRA analysis does not take records of publications in the WoK.into consideration the number of authors of the given work(publication). A survey of the database shows that the Other important scientific papers that WoK doesaverage number of papers published by authors from not record are patents and monographs (or articles inpublic universities in SR increased gradually in the 1996 – monographs). We believe that these types of publication2005 period – in 1995 there were 999 papers and in 2005 are included in the survey to a certain extent, even ifthe number had increased to 1,234. indirectly. Monographs or chapters in them are produced mainly from the results of the scientific papers of their In 2005, public universities in the SR had a total of author or authors. These scientific results are as a rule10,065 teachers and 1,239 research and artistic workers also published in articles in recognized periodicals.with higher education, representing a total of 11,304 However, as it was already mentioned, ARRA will deal withcreative workers. This means that for each worker, 0.11 this issue in a comprehensive manner in the coming time.papers were published in 2005. The results in the tablesand graphs published in this ARRA report show that the A quite natural question to ask is whether theaverage number of papers per creative worker numbers stated in individual graphs and tables forconsiderably differs depending on faculty’s orientation. indicator VV1 are low, average or high. Comparison with other assessments of a similar type in other countries led 26 To assess artistic outputs such as exhibitions, works of design art, film works, artistic performances, architectural projects, etc.,25 Where the name of the author could not be linked to a faculty ARRA will attempt to draw up a special methodology in discussionfrom the database, the link was made through the list of faculty with the respective higher education institutions. 27employees on its website. E.g., THES, 27 October 2006, p. 9. 21
  • 22. to the conclusion that they are on the low side. A serious In all groups except for SOC, an increase of theanswer to this question depends on a comparison with the average indicator occurred, with the NAT group having thefaculties of other – foreign – universities or comparison most marked increase. The SOC group is interesting bywith the results of non-university scientific institutions. A having the value of the indicator increased for a largecomparison of the three best faculties with the institutes of majority of faculties; in five cases a certain value of thethe Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) in the relevant field indicator was recorded even by faculties that had zero inaccording to the Frascati Manual likewise shows that – the last year. To a considerable extent, the averagewith a few exceptions – the results of university faculties indicator is affected by the large decrease of the Trnavaare lower. University Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work. Number of publications per one creative worker in 2005 VV1 MED faculty group Published papers per creative worker 4,0 3,7 3,5 3,0 2,5 2005 2,0 1,5 2006 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ JessenLek UK 22
  • 23. NAT faculty group Published papers per creative worker 7 6,0 6 5,0 5 4,5 4 2005 2006 3 2 1,0 0,9 1 0,8 0,6 0,3 0,1 0 Infor a InfTech Prír ŽU FMFI UK Prír UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UKF Prír UMB Prír UCM Prír UPJŠ STUBAAGRO faculty group Published papers per creative worker 3,5 3,3 3,0 2,5 2,0 2005 2006 1,5 1,3 0,9 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,5 0,2 0,0 BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL Les TUZV Drev TUZV 23
  • 24. TECH faculty group Published papers per creative worker ChemTechn. 7,6 Hutn TUKE 2,6 Elektr STUBA 2,1 PriemTech TUAD 1,6 Elektr TUKE 0,7 Stav STUBA 0,6 Ban TUKE 0,6 Stroj STUBA 0,4 Elektr ŽU 0,3 Stav TUKE 0,3 MatTechn STUBA 0,3 2006 MechTron TUAD 0,2 2005 Stroj TUKE 0,2 Stroj ŽU 0,2 Riadenia ŽU 0,1 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,1 Mech SPU 0,1 VýrTech TUKE 0,1 Stav ŽU 0,0 Archit STUBA 0,0 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,0 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 24
  • 25. HUM faculty group Published papers per creative worker Fil PU 0,54 Fil UK 0,51 Evanj UK 0,50 Fil TVU 0,35 HumPrír PU 0,33 Hum UMB 0,11 Fil KU 0,05 RímsKat UK 0,05 Fil UCM 0,04 Fil UKF 0,01 VýtvarUm AU 0,00 2006 VŠVU BL 0,00 2005 Umení TUKE 0,00 Teol.TVU 0,00 Teol KU 0,00 Pravosl.PU 0,00 MuzUm AU 0,00 HudTan VŠMU 0,00 Greckokat.PU 0,00 Filolo UMB 0,00 FilmTel VŠMU 0,00 DramUm AU 0,00 Divadelná VŠMU 0,00 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 25
  • 26. SOC faculty group Published papers per creative worker ZdravSoc TVU 1,29 Obchod EU BA 0,64 Ekonom TUKE 0,52 NárHosp. EU BA 0,48 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,46 HospInfo EU BA 0,44 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,38 PodnMan EU BA 0,25 TV UK 0,24 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,19 Pedag TVU 0,17 Manag UK 0,14 EurŠt SPU 0,13 SocEkon UK 0,12 Ekonom UMB 0,12 EkonomManSPU 0,10 Pedag UK 0,08 2006 Práv UK 0,07 2005 Práv UPJŠ 0,05 Soc UKF 0,05 Polit UMB 0,04 Pedag KU 0,03 Zdravotnícka PU 0,02 SocEkon TUAD 0,02 Pedag UMB 0,02 Športu PU 0,00 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,00 Práv UMB 0,00 Práv TVU 0,00 Pedas ŽU 0,00 Pedag UKF 0,00 Pedag PU 0,00 MasMed UCM 0,00 Manažment PU 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 26
  • 27. VV2 Number of scientific publication The ARRA analysis however includes all citations capturedcitations per CW by the WoK, including self-citations. The available and suitable software for the analysis of publications andCitations represent another indicator of scientific citations does not contain filters that could exclude self-performance that is widely accepted around the world, in citations, perhaps with the exception for the SCOPUSparticular of the response to the published results of the database, which, however, has its limitations as well. Thescientific work of individuals and work groups. In time requirements for “manual” filtering would bediscussions of this indicator there have been a number of extremely high; however, ARRA works on a solution to thismisunderstandings, which is why it is again appropriate to problem. It can be expected, though, that the removal ofgive more space to its explanation. self-citations would not have a significant effect on the results presented here, as the proportion of self-citations Citation of a paper is an evidence that the paper will be approximately the same at similar institutions30.contributed, in its field, to extending the knowledge, thatother scientists are aware of the paper, and that they use Just for information, employees of Slovakthe information from such paper in further exploration28. universities published a total of 12,172 papers that areWith a certain measure of simplification, and apart from recorded in WoK in the period 1996 – 2005. 7,326the differing citation rate for papers in various scientific citations of these papers were recorded. Of these 12,172fields, it can be said that the more citations of a paper papers, however, 4,846 papers i.e. 40%, did not receive aoccurs in the scientific community (that is, the greater is single citation. This fact shows that even the papers’ ownthe response to the paper), the more the paper influenced author did not cite it during the monitored period.its field of science, the more it contributed to extending Compared to the period of 1995 – 2004, when there werethe knowledge, and the more important it is. There are 3,823 such papers (30%, the total being 11,163), this ispapers published that have no response (having zero an increase by more than 1,000 papers (or ten percentagecitations), but there are also publications that have points) that no one noticed. Thus, although thehundreds and thousands of citations29. quantitative indicator of the number of publications increased, their attractiveness for the world’s scientific In the WoS database, every work is linked to community decreased. It is not without interest that theinformation about the number of times and in which increase in the number of publications nearly coincidespapers it has been cited. The citations of each author’s with the increase in the number of papers that no onework can be looked up. Citations for all papers come only noticed.from the periodicals, for which WoK collects information.The papers whose citations are analysed here are precisely In the HUM group, only 7 faculties recorded anythose papers that were included in indicator VV1, i.e., result (only 6 in 2004), with the other 16 (of which 8 arepapers published in the years 1996 – 2005 and recorded in faculties of art) having no record. The situation is thethe WoK database. For example, if an author in a same in the SOC group – 12 faculties out of a total of 36particular faculty published a work in 1994 (i.e. before the did not record any data. However, the situation improvedmonitored period), which has a number of citations, here as well; in 2004, as many as 19 faculties wereneither this work nor its citations are included in the ARRA without a record. In other words, it can be said that in theanalysis. If the work was published in 2002, the work field of humanities and social science disciplines, creativeappears in indicator VV1 and its citations will be counted in workers are capable of publishing papers in journalsindicator VV2. included in the WoK database, this being with a certain response. This leads to a certain reduction in the number ofcitations but this is not considered to be a fundamentalproblem. The same conditions were applied to eachuniversity in the study. This reduction has also helped tocapture the current situation, which is probably moreimportant for today’s prospective students than the richscientific history of the university from thirty years before. Citations for papers published in the years 1996 –2005 are accumulating in 2006 and will continue toaccumulate in future years. The analysis of citations wascarried out as at 31 December 2005, and therefore the setof citations includes only those from before this date. A classic problem in analysing citations is excludingself-citations, i.e. citations of papers where at least one ofthe authors of the citing work is one of the authors of thecited work. When calculating the number of citations ofthe work of a given author, especially in careerprogression, self-citations are not taken into consideration.28 Opinions are sometimes voiced that even papers with wrongresults or attitudes are frequently cited just for their mistakes. It istrue that there are such papers. However, it can be assumed thattheir number is not significant.29 The highest cited paper of a Slovak scientist in the period of1996 – 2005 was cited 249 times in the period under assessment.The paper is the following: Abreu, P., W. Adam, et al. (1996). 30“Performance of the DELPHI detector.” Nuclear Instruments & The citation analysis of certain randomly selected authorsMethods in Physics Research Section a- Accelerators showed that for sufficient numbers of citations (several tens orSpectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment 378(1-2): 57- hundreds), the number of self-citations does not exceed 5 – 7%. In100; which was contributed to by a group of authors from the FMFI the case of a low number of citations, the self-citations may play aUK. greater role. 27
  • 28. Number of citations per creative worker in 1996 – 2005 VV2MED faculty group Number of citations per creative worker 18 15,9 16 14 12 10 2005 8 6,2 2006 6 5,0 4,2 4 2 0 JessenLek Lek UK Lek UPJŠ Farm UK UKNAT faculty group Number of citations per creative worker 45 40,3 40 35 30 23,3 25 19,1 2005 20 2006 15 10 2,3 2,0 1,7 1,0 5 0,0 0,0 0 Ekolenv TUZ FMFI UK Infor a InfTech Prír UK Prír UKF Prír UMB Prír UCM Prír ŽU Prír UPJŠ STUBA 28
  • 29. AGRO faculty group Number of citations per creative worker 7 6,5 6 5 4 2005 3 2,7 2,7 2006 2 0,8 1 0,5 0,1 0 VeterLek. Les TUZV BiotPotr. Drev TUZV Záhrad Agro SPU SPU SPU UVLTECH faculty group Number of citations per creative worker ChemTechn. STUBA 31,4 Elektr STUBA 7,7 PriemTech TUAD 5,2 Hutn TUKE 3,8 Stav STUBA 2,0 Ban TUKE 1,4 Stroj STUBA 1,3 Elektr TUKE 1,3 Stav TUKE 0,6 MatTechn STUBA 0,3 0,2 Elektr ŽU 2006 Stroj TUKE 0,2 2005 Riadenia ŽU 0,2 Stroj ŽU 0,1 MechTron TUAD 0,1 VýrTech TUKE 0,0 Mech SPU 0,0 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,0 Archit STUBA 0,0 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,0 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,0 0,0 Stav ŽU 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 29
  • 30. HUM faculty group Number of citations per creative worker HumPrír PU 0,38 Fil UK 0,27 Fil PU 0,14 Fil TVU 0,09 Evanj UK 0,06 Hum UMB 0,03 Fil UCM 0,01 VýtvarUm AU 0,00 VŠVU BL 0,00 Umení TUKE 0,00 Teol.TVU 0,00 0,00 2006 Teol KU 2005 RímsKat UK 0,00 Pravosl.PU 0,00 MuzUm AU 0,00 HudTan VŠMU 0,00 Greckokat.PU 0,00 Filolo UMB 0,00 FilmTel VŠMU 0,00 Fil UKF 0,00 Fil KU 0,00 DramUm AU 0,00 Divadelná VŠMU 0,00 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 30
  • 31. SOC faculty group Number of citations per creative worker ZdravSoc TVU 5,98 Pedag TVU 0,73 HospInfo EU BA 0,22 NárHosp. EU BA 0,21 Ekonom TUKE 0,18 TV UK 0,17 Obchod EU BA 0,16 EurŠt SPU 0,09 SocEkon UK 0,08 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,07 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,04 Polit UMB 0,04 Práv UPJŠ 0,04 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,03 Manag UK 0,03 Pedag UMB 0,03 EkonomManSPU 0,03 2006 Ekonom UMB 0,02 2005 Pedag UK 0,01 Soc UKF 0,01 PodnMan EU BA 0,01 Pedag KU 0,01 Zdravotnícka PU 0,00 Športu PU 0,00 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,00 SocEkon TUAD 0,00 Práv UMB 0,00 Práv UK 0,00 Práv TVU 0,00 Pedas ŽU 0,00 Pedag UKF 0,00 Pedag PU 0,00 MasMed UCM 0,00 Manažment PU 0,00 0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0 31
  • 32. VV2a Number of citations per publicationaccording to WoK It appears that in both the VV2 and VV2aVV2a is a new indicator making possible certain indicators (which was not specially monitored last year,comparisons with the highest international level. Some of but ARRA analysed it for internal purposes for certainthe more successful faculties of public universities in the faculties), the situation slightly improved compared toSR are shown in Table 9. 2004. This was reflected not only in an increase of the quantitative indicators for nearly all faculties but also by the emergence of more faculties that previously had a zeroTable 9: Average number of citations per value of this indicator. For example, in the case of VV2,paper for certain faculties of public NAT was extended to cover the ŽU Faculty of Naturaluniversities, 1996 – 2005 Sciences and the STU Faculty of Informatics and Information Technology; in SOC, even if the TvU Faulty ofFaculty Average No. of citations per Healthcare and Social Work significantly decreased – paper (1996-2005) although still leading, as many as 7 new faculties emergedFaculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics 8,0 (the SPU Faculty of European Studies and RegionalUKFaculty of Natural Sciences UK 4,3 Development, the UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences,Faculty of Pharmacy UK 4,3 the EU Faculty of Business Management, the UMB FacultyFaculty of Medicine UPJS 4,1 of Political Sciences, the UMB Faculty of Education, theFaculty of Chemical and Food Technology 4,1STUBA UMB Faculty of Economics, and the UKF Faculty of SocialFaculty of Natural Sciences UPJS 3,9 Sciences and Healthcare).Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK 3,7Faculty of Medicine UK 3,5University of Veterinary Medicine Košice 2,0 It should be noted on the account of the TvU Faulty of Healthcare and Social Work as an extreme that its good results came thanks to a small group of experts who publish also in medical disciplines. The WoK database A comparison with other countries can be made assigns these papers to this faculty and there is no reasonfairly simply because THES31 uses the same methodology. for not counting these in as the performance of thisFirst those of the best higher education institutions: faculty.Table 10: Average number of citations perpaper for some of the most successfuluniversities in the worldUniversity Average No. of citations per paper (1995-2004)Harvard University 20,6Princeton University 17,7Stanford University 17,3University of California, Berkeley 16,0ETH Zurich 14,0Cambridge University 12,9Oxford University 12,2 Middle of the table in the stated journal:Table 11: Average number of citations perpaper for some other universities in the worldUniversity Average No. of citations per paper (1995-2004)University of British Columbia 10,1Copenhagen University 8,7La Sapienza University Roma 7,8Osaka University 7,3 From this comparison32 we can see that not eventhe relatively successful faculties of Slovak publicuniversities (apart from the UK Faculty of Mathematics,Physics and Informatics) achieve a medium position in theaverage number of citations for a published paper. Nochanges occurred in this situation compared to 2004. University Average No. of citations per paper (1995-2004) University of British Columbia 10,1 Copenhagen University 8,7 La Sapienza University Roma 7,8 Osaka University 7,331 The Times Higher Education Supplement, 7 October 2005, p. 9.32 Even if data for foreign universities for 1995 – 2004 arecompared, during such long periods (10 years), significant changesin the results usually do not occur. This is the reason why, e.g.,THES makes a transition to shorter, 5-years’ periods as of 2006. 32
  • 33. Number of citations per publication VV2aMED faculty group Number of citations per publication 4,5 4,3 4,1 4,0 3,7 3,5 3,5 3,0 2,5 2006 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Farm UK Lek UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UKNAT faculty group Number of citations per publication 9 8,0 8 7 6 5 4,3 3,9 2006 4 3,1 3 2,1 2 1,6 1,6 1 0,3 0,2 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Infor.aInf.Tech.STUBA Prír UCM Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽU 33
  • 34. AGRO faculty group Number of citations per publication 3,5 3,2 3,0 2,5 2,1 2,0 2,0 2006 1,5 1,0 0,8 0,7 0,5 0,5 0,0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 34
  • 35. TECH faculty group Number of citations per publication ChemTechn. STUBA 4,1 Elektr STUBA 3,7 PriemTech TUAD 3,2 Stav STUBA 3,2 Stroj STUBA 3,2 Ban TUKE 2,3 Stav TUKE 2,1 Elektr TUKE 1,7 Hutn TUKE 1,5 RiadInf ŽU 1,1 Stroj TUKE 1,0 2006 MatTechn STUBA 0,9 Stroj ŽU 0,8 Elektr ŽU 0,7 MechTron TUAD 0,6 VýrTech TUKE 0,5 Mech SPU 0,4 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,3 Archit STUBA 0,2 Stav ŽU 0,0 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,0 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,0 0 1 2 3 4 5 35
  • 36. HUM faculty group Number of citations per publication HumPrír PU 1,15 Fil UK 0,54 Fil PU 0,26 Fil TVU 0,26 Hum UMB 0,25 Fil UCM 0,20 Evanj UK 0,13 Fil KU 0,00 Fil UKF 0,00 Pravosl.PU 0,00 Teol KU 0,00 HudTan VŠMU 0,00 2006 RímsKat UK 0,00 Teol.TVU 0,00 Divadelná VŠMU 0,00 FilmTel VŠMU 0,00 VŠVU BL 0,00 Greckokat.PU 0,00 MuzUm AU 0,00 VýtvarUm AU 0,00 Filolo UMB 0,00 DramUm AU 0,00 Umení TUKE 0,00 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 36
  • 37. SOC faculty group Number of citations per publication ZdravSoc TVU 4,62 Pedag TVU 4,38 Pedag UMB 1,50 Polit UMB 1,00 Eur.Št. SPU 0,75 TV UK 0,71 SocEkon UK 0,67 Práv UPJŠ 0,67 HospInfo EU BA 0,51 NárHosp. EU BA 0,45 Ekonom TUKE 0,35 Obchod EU BA 0,25 EkonomManSPU 0,25 Soc UKF 0,25 Pedag KU 0,25 Manag UK 0,20 Pedag UK 0,18 2006 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,17 Ekonom UMB 0,17 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,15 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,10 PodnMan EU BA 0,04 Pedag PU 0,00 Pedag UKF 0,00 Práv UK 0,00 Práv TVU 0,00 Pedas ŽU 0,00 Športu PU 0,00 Práv UMB 0,00 Zdravotnícka PU 0,00 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,00 Manažment PU 0,00 SocEkon TUAD 0,00 MasMed UCM 0,00 0 1 2 3 4 5 37
  • 38. VV3 Number of published papers withmore than 5 citations per CWOne of the criteria that can show the impact that faculties For the sake of interest, we can again state thator universities have had on scientific progress around the only 2,986 of the 12,172 papers produced by Slovakworld is to set a certain measure of response (number of universities in the period 1996 – 2005 met the criterion33citations) to publications by authors from the faculty. In (and more than half of these came from three faculties -the ARRA analysis, the original intention was to identify the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, the UKand analyse numbers of papers with a high number of Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, and thecitations, which could relate to the presence of strong UK Faculty of Natural Sciences), i.e. for each creativescientific personalities, or top research groups, in worker there were 0.027 such papers per year34.individual faculties. WoK enables identifying such papersby fields of science. However, it turned out that accordingto WoK, there are no such papers in Slovakia. Even if onechooses only 50 as the minimum number of citations (and50 and even more are examined as a standard), themajority of faculties in Slovak universities did not haveeven one such paper in the period from 1996 to 2005. Forthis reason, ARRA, taking into consideration the Slovakresearch community, decided to use a more generousthreshold value in this evaluation period. This analysisincludes the indicator VV3 so that it provides informationon the number of papers with more than 5 citations perpublication – and compared to the last year – a newindicator, VV3a, with the number of 25 citations perpublication. Among 100 faculties, only 39 (which is 2 morethan in 2004), i.e., approximately two fifths, met thecriterion of 5 citations per publication. It is encouragingthat even in the HUM group, there are 3 such faculties(the PU Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, theUK Faculty of Philosophy, the PU Faculty of Philosophy; itshould be emphasised again that 8 faculties in the groupare faculties of art). Five faculties in the SOC group (theTvU Faculty of Education, which got before the TvU Faultyof Healthcare and Social Work, the EU Faculty of EconomicInformatics, the EU Faculty of Business, the EU Faculty ofNational Economy) do have such papers. The UK Facultyof Mathematics, Physics and Informatics lead the NATGROUP with a value of 2.0. The STU Faculty of Informaticsand Information Technology (as a new, not assessedfaculty) and the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences rank lowestin the table with a value of 0. In other groups, thesituation is similar. In TECH the STU Faculty of Chemicaland Food Technology had a score of 2.2, which is thehighest of any of the studied faculties. Compared to 2004,the situation improved here as well – out of 21 TECHfaculties, this criterion is met by 14 (in 2004 this figurewas only 8). In the case of MED faculties, the mostsuccessful is the UK Faculty of Pharmacy with 1, theJessenius Faculty of Medicine had the score of 0.27. 33 In 2004, there were 2,595 such papers. 34 In 2004, there was 0.023 such paper per creative worker. 38
  • 39. Number of published papers with more than 5 citations per number of creative workers VV3 MED faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker 1,2 1,00 1,0 0,8 2005 0,6 0,44 0,41 2006 0,4 0,27 0,2 0,0 Farm UK Lek UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UKNAT faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker 2,5 2,01 2,0 1,45 1,5 2005 1,11 2006 1,0 0,5 0,15 0,13 0,10 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,0 324,9 187,4 407,0 119,7 107,0 58,4 51,9 38,8 101,4 39
  • 40. AGRO faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker 0,50 0,43 0,45 0,40 0,35 0,30 2005 0,25 0,18 2006 0,20 0,14 0,15 0,10 0,03 0,02 0,05 0,01 0,00 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. Záhrad VeterLek. Agro SPU SPU SPU UVL TECH faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker ChemTechn. STUBA 2,16 Elektr STUBA 0,48 PriemTech TUAD 0,37 Hutn TUKE 0,28 Stav STUBA 0,14 Elektr TUKE 0,10 Stroj STUBA 0,09 Ban TUKE 0,08 Stav TUKE 0,03 Stroj TUKE 0,01 MatTechn STUBA 0,01 2006 Riadenia ŽU 0,01 2005 Elektr ŽU 0,01 Stroj ŽU 0,01 VýrTech TUKE 0,00 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,00 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,00 Stav ŽU 0,00 MechTron TUAD 0,00 Mech SPU 0,00 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,00 Archit STUBA 0,00 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 40
  • 41. HUM faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker HumPrír PU 0,02 Fil UK 0,01 Fil PU 0,01 VýtvarUm AU 0,00 VŠVU BL 0,00 Umení TUKE 0,00 Teol.TVU 0,00 Teol KU 0,00 RímsKat UK 0,00 Pravosl.PU 0,00 MuzUm AU 0,00 2006 Hum UMB 0,00 2005 HudTan VŠMU 0,00 Greckokat.PU 0,00 Filolo UMB 0,00 FilmTel VŠMU 0,00 Fil UKF 0,00 Fil UCM 0,00 Fil TVU 0,00 Fil KU 0,00 Evanj UK 0,00 DramUm AU 0,00 Divadelná VŠMU 0,00 0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 41
  • 42. SOC faculty group Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker Pedag TVU 0,31 ZdravSoc TVU 0,30 HospInfo EU BA 0,02 Obchod EU BA 0,02 NárHosp. EU BA 0,02 Zdravotnícka PU 0,00 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,00 TV UK 0,00 Športu PU 0,00 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,00 SocEkon UK 0,00 SocEkon TUAD 0,00 Soc UKF 0,00 Práv UPJŠ 0,00 Práv UMB 0,00 Práv UK 0,00 Práv TVU 0,00 2006 Polit UMB 0,00 2005 PodnMan EU BA 0,00 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,00 Pedas ŽU 0,00 Pedag UMB 0,00 Pedag UKF 0,00 Pedag UK 0,00 Pedag PU 0,00 Pedag KU 0,00 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,00 MasMed UCM 0,00 Manažment PU 0,00 Manag UK 0,00 EurŠt SPU 0,00 EkonomManSPU 0,00 Ekonom UMB 0,00 Ekonom TUKE 0,00 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 42
  • 43. totalling 355. Nearly two thirds of such papers wereVV3a Number of papers with more than 25 produced by three above-mentioned faculties (the STUcitations per CW Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, and the UKThe VV3a criterion is similar to the VV3 criterion, but it is Faculty of Natural Sciences). In the HUM group, there issomewhat more stringent, as it reflects papers having 25 no faculty with a paper that would meet this criterion; incitations in the period under assessment. Such papers the SOC group, only the Faculty of Healthcare and Socialwere published by 16 faculties of Slovak higher education Work has 5 similar papers. The graphs for these groupsinstitutions in 10 years, with 11,119 creative workers, therefore do not need to be presented. Number of published papers with more than 25 citations per number of creative workers VV3a MED faculty group Number of papers with more than 25 citations 0,040 0,04 0,035 0,030 0,03 0,025 0,02 0,020 0,02 2006 0,015 0,010 0,005 0,000 Farm UK Lek UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UK 43
  • 44. NAT faculty group Number of papers with more than 25 citations 0,40 0,38 0,35 0,30 0,25 0,20 2006 0,14 0,15 0,12 0,10 0,05 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Infor.aInf.Tech.STUBA Prír UCM Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽUAGRO faculty group Number of papers with more than 25 citations 0,016 0,014 0,014 0,012 0,010 0,008 2006 0,006 0,004 0,003 0,002 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 44
  • 45. TECH faculty group Number of papers with more than 25 citations ChemTechn. STUBA 0,15 Elektr STUBA 0,04 Ban TUKE 0,01 Stroj STUBA 0,01 Stav STUBA 0,00 VýrTech TUKE 0,00 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,00 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,00 Stroj ŽU 0,00 Stroj TUKE 0,00 Stav ŽU 0,00 2006 Stav TUKE 0,00 RiadInf ŽU 0,00 PriemTech TUAD 0,00 MechTron TUAD 0,00 Mech SPU 0,00 MatTechn STUBA 0,00 Hutn TUKE 0,00 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,00 Elektr ŽU 0,00 Elektr TUKE 0,00 Archit STUBA 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16 45
  • 46. Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group AGRONo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average 1 University of Veterinary University of Veterinary Medicine 100 95 37 100 90 84,5 Medicine 2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Slovak University of Agriculture 96 100 100 81 - 75,5 Food Sciences 3 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 25 40 61 42 100 53,6 4 Faculty of Agrobiology and Slovak University of Agriculture 28 11 16 7 - 12,5 Food Resources 5 Faculty of Wood Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 19 7 14 2 - 8,4 and Technology 6 Faculty of Horticulture and Slovak University of Agriculture 6 2 10 3 - 4,2 Landscape Engineering HUMNo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average Faculty of the Humanities 1 University of Prešov 62 100 100 100 - 72,3 and Natural Sciences 2 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 94 72 47 76 - 57,9 3 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 100 37 23 73 - 46,7 Evangelical Theological 4 Comenius University 94 17 11 - - 24,2 Faculty 5 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 65 24 23 - - 22,4 6 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 21 7 22 - - 10,0 University of St. Cyril and 7 Faculty of Arts 7 2 17 - - 5,4 Methodius 8 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 25 - - - - 5,1 Roman Catholic Theological 9 Faculty of Cyril and Comenius University 10 - - - - 2,0 Methodius Constantine the Philosopher10 Faculty of Arts 2 - - - - 0,4 University11 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - - - - -12 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts - - - - - - Faculty of Fine Arts and13 Academy of Arts - - - - - - Design Greek Catholic Theological14 University of Prešov - - - - - - Faculty15 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov - - - - - -16 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice - - - - - -17 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava - - - - - -18 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University - - - - - - Academy of Music and Dramatic19 Faculty of Theatre Arts - - - - - - Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic20 Faculty of Film and Television - - - - - - Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic21 Faculty of Music and Dance - - - - - - Arts Academy of Fine Arts and22 Academy of Fine Arts and Design - - - - - - Design MEDNo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average 1 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 100 100 100 100 100 100,0 2 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 40 39 97 32 33 48,1 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 42 31 76 35 20 40,7 4 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 27 26 98 27 20 39,6 NATNo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average Faculty of Mathematics, 1 Comenius University 83 100 100 100 100 96,7 Physics and Informatics 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 100 58 48 72 31 61,8 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 74 47 53 55 36 53,1 4 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 13 6 38 7 - 12,8 Constantine the Philosopher 5 Faculty of Natural Sciences 16 5 26 6 3 11,2 University Faculty of Ecology and 6 Technical university in Zvolen 17 4 20 4 - 9 Environmental Sciences University of St. Cyril and 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences 11 3 20 5 - 7 Methodius 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 2 0 3 - - 1 46
  • 47. Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group (continued) SOCNo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average Faculty of Health Care and 1 University of Trnava 100 100 100 100 100 100,0 Social Work 2 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 13 12 95 13 - 26,6 Faculty of European Studies 3 Slovak University of Agriculture 24 4 41 - - 13,8 and Regional Development 4 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 50 3 5 3 - 12,0 Faculty of Physical Education 5 Comenius University 18 3 38 - - 11,9 and Sports Faculty of International 6 University of Economics 49 1 4 - - 10,7 Relations 7 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 37 4 10 2 - 10,4 Faculty of Economic 8 University of Economics 34 4 11 2 - 10,2 Informatics 9 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 40 3 8 - - 10,2 Faculty of Social and10 Comenius University 24 3 14 - - 8,3 Economic Sciences Faculty of Business11 University of Economics 35 1 3 - - 8,0 Economics12 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 1 0 32 - - 6,9 Faculty of Public13 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 21 1 5 - - 5,4 Administration Faculty of Political Sciences14 Matej Bel University 3 1 22 - - 5,0 and International Relations Faculty of Social Sciences Constantine the Philosopher15 10 1 14 - - 4,8 and Health University16 Pedagogical Faculty Catholic University 6 0 14 - - 4,1 Faculty of Business17 University of Economics 1 9 0 1 - - Management18 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 4 1 14 - - 3,819 Faculty of Management Comenius University 1 1 0 4 - - Faculty of Economics and20 Slovak University of Agriculture 8 0 5 - - 2,7 Management21 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 1 0 0 4 - -22 Faculty of Education Comenius University 6 0 4 - - 2,123 Faculty of Law Comenius University 5 - - - - 1,024 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 4 - - - - 0,8 Faculty of Social and Alexander Dubček University in25 1 - - - - 0,3 Economic Relations Trenčín26 Faculty of Education University of Prešov - - - - - -27 Faculty of Law University of Trnava - - - - - - Constantine the Philosopher28 Faculty of Education - - - - - - University29 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University - - - - - - Faculty of Mass Media University of St. Cyril and30 - - - - - - Communication Methodius Faculty of Operation and31 Economics of Transport and University of Žilina - - - - - - Communications 47
  • 48. Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group (continued) TECHNo. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average Faculty of Chemical and Food 1 Slovak Technical University 100 100 100 100 100 100,0 Technology Faculty of Electrical 2 Slovak Technical University 27 25 90 22 26 38,0 Engineering and Informatics Faculty of Industrial Alexander Dubček University in 3 21 17 78 17 - 26,6 Technologies Trenčín 4 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 8 6 78 6 2 20,1 5 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 3 4 12 36 13 - Faculty of Mechanical 6 Slovak Technical University 5 4 77 4 4 18,9 Engineering Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and 7 Technical University of Košice 8 4 55 4 5 15,3 Geotechnology Faculty of Electrical 8 Technical University of Košice 10 4 41 5 - 12,0 Engineering and Informatics 9 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 4 2 51 1 - 11,5 Faculty of Management and10 University of Žilina 2 1 26 0 - 5,7 Informatics Faculty of Material Sciences11 Slovak Technical University 4 1 23 0 - 5,5 and Technology Faculty of Mechanical12 Technical University of Košice 3 1 24 0 - 5,5 Engineering Faculty of Mechanical13 University of Žilina 2 0 19 0 - 4,5 Engineering Faculty of Electrical14 University of Žilina 4 1 17 0 - 4,4 Engineering Alexander Dubček University in15 Faculty of Mechatronics 3 0 15 - - 3,5 Trenčín Faculty of Manufacturing16 Technical University of Košice 1 0 12 - - 2,7 Technologies Faculty of Agricultural17 Slovak University of Agriculture 2 0 10 - - 2,3 Engineering Faculty of Environmental and18 Technical university in Zvolen 2 0 7 - - 1,8 Manufacturing Technology19 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 0 0 5 - - 1,120 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 1 - - - - 0,1 Faculty of Special Alexander Dubček University in21 - - - - - - Technologies Trenčín Faculty of Special22 University of Žilina - - - - - - Engineering 48
  • 49. more, the SR Ministry of Education allocates funds for paying PhD students to universities for this purpose. It is 6.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group clear that this allocation is still not based on the scientific performance of the faculty. VV4 The number of PhD students in full time study in proportion to the number of The following graphs illustrate the low dependence professors and associate professors of the parameters (the blue points represent faculties, the As a rule only a few associate professor and professors red line the dependence of parameters); the correlation supervise PhD students (and a small number of holders of coefficient is given in Table 14. (A perfect correlation has a scientific degree IIa and I, about whom there is no correlation coefficient R equal to 1. The lower the value, information in the public domain). This indicator shows the the lower the correlation. If the value of R is lower than proportion of the faculty’s (university’s) supervision 0.8, it is statistically impossible to speak about a capacity that is used. demonstrable correlation between variables. The most successful faculties in the individual groups of faculties in this indicator are shown in Table 13. Published papers and PhD students Table 13: The number of PhD students in full 3 PhD students / (prof + time study in proportion to the number of associate prof.) 2,5 professors and associate professors35 2Faculty The number of PhD 1,5 students in full time study/(number 1 of prof.+assoc.prof.) 0,5Faculty of International Relations EU SOC 1,75Faculty of Theology TvU HUM 1,54 0Faculty of Natural Sciences UK NAT 1,71 0 2 4 6 8Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape AGRO 2,62Engineering SPU Published papers per creative workerFaculty of Chemical and Food Technology TECH 2,09STUBAJessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 1,10 Citations and PhD students These numbers can also be compared with top 3 foreign universities. Even if in comparison with 2004, the PhD students / (prof + 2,5 situation in 2005 improved (the table now features also associate prof.) faculties with generally good Slovak performance also in 2 other indicators; the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences and 1,5 the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology), the 1 comments made in the 2005 report remain valid. In the cited article in THES it shows that Oxford University having 0,5 a staff of around 3,000 has approximately 3,000 0 postgraduate students. At first glance, this would 0 10 20 30 40 50 correspond to number 1 in Table 13 and would be the Citations per creative worker same as in our faculties. There are, however, a number of differences. Oxford University is significantly more productive Grants and PhD students in scientific work than our faculties; the papers of its teachers and research workers are cited significantly more 3 often and it is also much better financed. If the results of PhD students / (prof + our faculties in indicator VV4 are compared and at the 2,5 associate prof.) same time indicators VV1 – VV3a and indicators VV7 – VV8 2 are taken into consideration, it is clear that in several 1,5 faculties with high numbers of PhD students, the publication success and the success in obtaining grants are 1 relatively low. 0,5 0 The question then arises whether it is possible to 0 50 100 150 200 provide quality education for PhD students in such a Grants per creative worker (in SKK 000) situation. The following graphs and Table 14 clearly show that there is practically no correlation between the quality of scientific performance in our universities and the Table 14: Correlation coefficient (R) for the number of PhD students36 again, similarly as in the last number of PhD students in full time study per year, even if only full-time PhD students are taken into consideration37, which is quite an alarming finding. What is professor and the data from the previous graphs Chart Chart Chart 35 In this and other tables we always indicate the best faculty from “Publications “Grants and “Citations and each of the six groups, unless stated otherwise. and PhD PhD 36 PhD students” Only full-time PhD students are included. students” students” 37 However, it should be noted that the correlation of the monitored Correlation indicators slightly improved after part-time PhD students were 0,30 0,26 0,42 coefficient omitted from the comparison, particularly in the area of grant funds per creative worker. 49
  • 50. The ratio of the number of full time PhD students to the number of professors and associate professorsSimilarly poor, yet somewhat better, is the correlation reflects not only the efforts of the faculty to provide itselfbetween i) faculties’ performance in science and the ability with a young, successor generation, but also theto obtain grants and ii) the proportion of professors and “utilisation” of supervisors. It may be noticed that theassociate professors or teaching staff with PhD in the total average values cover the fact that there are professorsnumber of the teaching staff. This finding is interesting and associate professors that supervise a number of PhDalso with respect to the fact that it is mostly the students and also some who supervise no one. It shouldprofessors, associate professors and teachers with PhD be the task and power of the faculty to analyse andwho are responsible for these activities. address issues relating to its own human resources. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed substantiallyTable 15: Correlation coefficient of the compared to 2004. Moreover, 14 faculties do not have aproportion of professors and associate single full-time PhD student (in 2004, there were 19 suchprofessors and data on scientific production faculties), even if each higher education institution inand grants Slovakia declares the ambition of being included among Publ/TP Cit/TP Grants/TP research institutions.Correlation 0,38 0,34 0,43coefficientTable 16: Correlation coefficient of theproportion of teachers with PhD and data onscientific production and grants Publ/TP Cit/TP Grants/TPCorrelation 0,42 0,33 0,52coefficient The number of full time PhD students in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors in 2005 VV4 MED faculty group Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor 1,2 1,1 1 0,8 0,8 0,8 2005 0,6 0,5 2006 0,4 0,2 0 Farm UK Lek UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UK 50
  • 51. NAT faculty group Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor 2 1,8 1,8 1,6 1,6 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,2 1,1 1,1 2005 1 0,8 2006 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,0 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBAAGRO faculty group Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor 2 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,4 1,3 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,0 2005 1 0,9 2006 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 BiotPotr. SPU Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 51
  • 52. TECH faculty group Num ber of full-tim e PhD students per professor and associate professor ChemTechn. STUBA 1,5 Stroj ŽU 1,5 PriemTech TUAD 1,3 Hutn TUKE 1,3 Riadenia ŽU 1,2 Ban TUKE 1,2 EnvirTech. TUZV 1,2 Stroj TUKE 1,1 Stav STUBA 1,1 Stroj STUBA 1,1 Elektr STUBA 1,1 2006 Elektr ŽU 1,1 2005 Archit STUBA 1,1 Stav ŽU 1,0 Elektr TUKE 1,0 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,8 Mech SPU 0,8 VýrTech TUKE 0,8 Stav TUKE 0,8 MatTechn STUBA 0,7 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,5 MechTron TUAD 0,0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 52
  • 53. HUM faculty group Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor Teol.TVU 2,1 Pravosl.PU 1,6 FilmTel VŠMU 1,5 Fil TVU 1,4 HudTan VŠMU 1,2 Fil PU 1,0 Hum UMB 1,0 Fil UKF 0,9 Fil KU 0,9Divadelná VŠMU 0,9 Teol KU 0,8 2006 VŠVU BL 0,8 2005 Fil UK 0,7 HumPrír PU 0,5 RímsKat UK 0,4 Evanj UK 0,3 Greckokat.PU 0,3 VýtvarUm AU 0,0 Umení TUKE 0,0 MuzUm AU 0,0 Filolo UMB 0,0 Fil UCM 0,0 0,0 DramUm AU 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 53
  • 54. SOC faculty group Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor MedzVzťah EU BA 2,6 Eur.Št. SPU 1,7 TV UK 1,4 Pedag PU 1,2 Pedas ŽU 1,1 EkonomManSPU 1,0 Pedag UKF 1,0 ZdravSoc TVU 1,0 Pedag UK 0,9 Práv TVU 0,9 Obchod EU BA 0,9 Manag UK 0,9 Ekonom TUKE 0,8 Športu PU 0,8 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,7 Ekonom UMB 0,7 Pedag KU 0,7 2006 Práv UK 0,7 2005 Pedag UMB 0,6 Soc UKF 0,6 HospInfo EU BA 0,6 PodnMan EU BA 0,5 Pedag TVU 0,4 Práv UMB 0,4 SocEkon UK 0,4 NárHosp. EU BA 0,4 Polit UMB 0,4 Práv UPJŠ 0,3 Zdravotníctva PU 0,0 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,0 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,0 SocEkon TUAD 0,0 MasMed UCM 0,0 Manažment PU 0,0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 54
  • 55. analysis shows that the success rate in PhD studies in ourVV5 Average annual number of PhD faculties is around 30%. By including indicator VV5, ARRAgraduates in 2003 – 2005 in proportion to the hopes to add to the analysis not only the number of PhDnumber of associate professors and students but in a certain sense, also to include the successprofessors of PhD studies. PhD study graduates are included regardless of the form of the PhD study.One of the problems of PhD study in Slovakia is therelatively low numbers who have completed it. ARRA’sTable 17: Average annual number of PhD graduates for 2003 – 2005 per professor or associateprofessor Faculty Average annual No. of PhD graduates per professor or associate professor Orthodox Theological Faculty PU HUM 0,57 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences TU Zvolen NAT 0,39 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology TU Košice TECH 0,48 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU AGRO 0,59 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU SOC 0,39 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 0,37 The average number of PhD graduates in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors in 2003 – 2005 VV5 MED faculty group Average number of PhD graduates 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,3 2005 0,3 0,3 2006 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,0 JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ 55
  • 56. NAT faculty group Average number of PhD graduates 0,45 0,4 0,39 0,37 0,35 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,23 0,22 2005 0,21 0,2 2006 0,15 0,09 0,1 0,05 0,00 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBAAGRO faculty group Average number of PhD graduates 0,7 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,4 2005 2006 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,0 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 56
  • 57. TECH faculty group Average number of PhD graduates Ban TUKE 0,48 Stroj ŽU 0,37 Hutn TUKE 0,32 Stroj TUKE 0,28 Elektr TUKE 0,21 ChemTechn. STUBA 0,21 Elektr STUBA 0,21 Riadenia ŽU 0,21 Archit STUBA 0,21 EnvirTech. TUZV 0,20 Stav TUKE 0,18 2006 Mech SPU 0,16 2005 Stroj STUBA 0,15 Stav STUBA 0,15 VýrTech TUKE 0,13 MatTechn STUBA 0,12 Elektr ŽU 0,10 Stav ŽU 0,10 ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,04 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,00 PriemTech TUAD 0,00 MechTron TUAD 0,00 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 57
  • 58. HUM faculty group Average number of PhD graduates Pravosl.PU 0,57 Evanj UK 0,56 RímsKat UK 0,55 Filozofická UK 0,45 FilmTel VŠMU 0,39 Filozofická PU 0,23 HudTan VŠMU 0,19 Filozofická TVU 0,14 Hum.vied UMB 0,14 Filozofická UKF 0,13 Divadelná VŠMU 0,09 2006 HumPrír PU 0,05 2005 VŠVU BL 0,04 Teol KU 0,00 VýtvarUm AU 0,00 Umení TUKE 0,00 Teol.TVU 0,00 MuzUm AU 0,00 Greckokat.PU 0,00 Filozofická UCM 0,00 Filozofická KU 0,00 Filologická UMB 0,00 0,00 DramUm AU 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 58
  • 59. SOC faculty group Average number of PhD graduates Športu PU 0,00 Stred.Eur.Št.UKF 0,00 Manažment PU 0,00 ZdravSoc TVU 0,31 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,15 Pedas ŽU 0,13 Manag UK 0,12 TV UK 0,12 Obchod EU BA 0,11 Pedag UK 0,11 NárHosp. EU BA 0,10 EkonomManSPU 0,10 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,09 HospInfo EU BA 0,08 PodnMan EU BA 0,06 Pedag UKF 0,06 Polit UMB 0,06 2006 Ekonom UMB 0,06 2005 Práv TVU 0,05 Práv UK 0,05 Pedag PU 0,05 Pedag UMB 0,04 Pedag TVU 0,03 Práv UPJŠ 0,03 Práv UMB 0,02 Zdravotníctva PU 0,00 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,00 SocEkon UK 0,00 SocEkon TUAD 0,00 Soc UKF 0,00 Pedag KU 0,00 MasMed UCM 0,00 Eur.Št. SPU 0,00 Ekonom TUKE 0,00 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 59
  • 60. only three faculties: The TvU Faculty of Theology (13.3%),VV6 The number of PhD students in full the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technologytime study in proportion to the total number (11.9%) and the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Socialof students studying full-time in 2005 Work (10.6%). 18 faculties out of 100 under assessment had a value of zero for this parameter. Compared to lastTypical foreign research universities have a relatively highnumber of PhD students in proportion to the total number year, certain changes occurred; in two faculties (the UKof their students. This ratio may in fact provide an image Faculty of Pharmacy and the SPU Faculty ofof a certain scientific level in the relevant faculty, which is Biotechnological and Food Sciences – even if generally small figures are involved), the proportion of PhD studentsthe parameter monitored by indicator VV6. tripled. On the contrary, at the UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine, it fell to one third. ARRA’s analysis shows that PhD students make upmore than 10 percent of the total number of students inTable 18: Proportion of PhD students of all students (in full-time study) Faculty Full-time PhD students / all full-time students (%) Faculty of Theology TvU HUM 13,3 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK NAT 8,4 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 11,9 University of Veterinary Medicine AGRO 6,7 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU SOC 10,6 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 5,0 The number of PhD students in proportion to the number of all students (full-time) VV6 MED faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full-time students 6% 5,0% 5% 4,3% 4% 2,9% 2005 3% 2006 1,8% 2% 1% 0% JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ 60
  • 61. NAT faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full-time students 9% 8,4% 8% 7,5% 7% 6% 4,9% 5% 2005 4% 2006 2,9% 3% 2,5% 2,0% 1,9% 2% 0,7% 1% 0,0% 0% FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBAAGRO faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full-time students 8% 7% 6,7% 6% 5,6% 5,3% 5% 4,3% 2005 4% 3,3% 3,3% 2006 3% 2% 1% 0% Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 61
  • 62. TECH faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full-time students ChemTechn. STUBA 11,9% Hutn TUKE 6,6% PriemTech TUAD 5,8% Stroj ŽU 4,8% Elektr STUBA 4,3% Stroj STUBA 3,8% EnvirTech. TUZV 3,8% Stav ŽU 3,7% Archit STUBA 3,6% Stav STUBA 3,3% Elektr ŽU 3,2% 2006 Stroj TUKE 3,0% 2005 Elektr TUKE 2,9% Mech SPU 2,8% Ban TUKE 2,7% Stav TUKE 2,5% MatTechn STUBA 2,3% ŠpecInž ŽU 2,0% ŠpecTechn TUAD 1,8% Riadenia ŽU 1,7% VýrTech TUKE 1,6% MechTron TUAD 0,0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 62
  • 63. HUM faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full time students Teol.TVU 12,4% FilmTel VŠMU 9,7% HudTan VŠMU 9,3% Divadelná VŠMU 7,8% VŠVU BL 5,1% Pravosl.PU 3,6% Fil TVU 3,4% RímsKat UK 2,7% Fil UK 2,4% Fil PU 2,2% Teol KU 1,7% 2006 Fil UKF 1,6% 2005 Hum UMB 1,6% Evanj UK 1,5% HumPrír PU 1,2% Fil KU 1,1% Greckokat.PU 0,6% VýtvarUm AU 0,0% Umení TUKE 0,0% MuzUm AU 0,0% Filolo UMB 0,0% Fil UCM 0,0% DramUm AU 0,0% 0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 63
  • 64. SOC faculty group The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full- time students ZdravSoc TVU 10,6% MedzVzťah EU BA 3,3% TV UK 3,1% Športu PU 2,8% Eur.Št. SPU 2,6% EkonomManSPU 2,6% Pedag UMB 2,4% Práv TVU 2,4% Pedas ŽU 2,2% Pedag UKF 1,7% Pedag UK 1,7% Pedag TVU 1,7% Manag UK 1,6% Obchod EU BA 1,6% Pedag PU 1,5% Práv UK 1,4% PodnHosp. EU BA 1,3% 2006 Pedag KU 1,3% 2005 Polit UMB 1,3% Ekonom TUKE 1,2% Ekonom UMB 1,2% HospInfo EU BA 1,2% Soc UKF 1,2% PodnMan EU BA 1,1% NárHosp. EU BA 1,1% SocEkon UK 1,1% Práv UMB 0,9% Práv UPJŠ 0,6% Zdravotníctva PU 0,0% Zdravotníctva KU 0,0% VerSpr UPJŠ 0,0% Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,0% SocEkon TUAD 0,0% MasMed UCM 0,0% Manažment PU 0,0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 64
  • 65. Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group AGRONo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average Faculty of Horticulture and Slovak University of Agriculture 1 100 100 49 83,0 Landscape Engineering Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technical university in Zvolen 2 78 36 79 64,6 Technology University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary 3 51 33 100 61,1 Medicine 4 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 68 32 83 60,9 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Slovak University of Agriculture 5 60 67 50 58,7 Resources Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Slovak University of Agriculture 6 83 - 64 48,9 Sciences HUMNo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 73 67 67 69,2 2 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 74 100 27 67,1 3 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 100 - 100 66,7 4 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 56 33 80 56,5 Roman Catholic Theological Comenius University 5 19 96 21 45,1 Faculty of Cyril and Methodius6 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 34 78 18 43,47 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 16 97 12 41,68 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 48 16 60 41,69 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 65 25 26 38,510 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 49 40 17 35,311 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 36 7 44 28,712 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 48 24 12 28,013 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 44 23 12 26,414 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 44 - 8 17,4 Faculty of the Humanities and University of Prešov15 24 8 9 13,7 Natural Sciences Greek Catholic Theological University of Prešov16 15 - 4 6 ,5 Faculty17 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - - -18 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts - - - -19 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts - - - -20 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice - - - -21 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University - - - -22 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - - MEDNo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 100 100 100,0 2 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 69 77 85 77,1 3 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 74 70 57 67,4 4 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 50 52 36 45,9 NATNo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 100 92 89 93,7 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics Comenius University 87 57 100 81,0 2 and Informatics 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 93 97 30 73,4 Faculty of Ecology and Technical university in Zvolen 62 100 35 65,7 4 Environmental Sciences 5 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 61 60 58 59,6 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 46 53 23 40,5 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 18 24 8 16,7 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - - 65
  • 66. Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group (continued) SOCNo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average Faculty of Health Care and Social University of Trnava 1 37 100 100 78,9 Work 2 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 100 48 31 59,8 Faculty of Physical Education and Comenius University 3 54 39 29 40,5 Sports Faculty of Operation and University of Žilina 4 Economics of Transport and 41 43 21 34,9 Communications Faculty of Economics and Slovak University of Agriculture 5 39 31 25 31,6 Management Faculty of European Studies and Slovak University of Agriculture 6 64 - 25 29,5 Regional Development7 Faculty of Management Comenius University 33 39 15 29,18 Faculty of Education Comenius University 36 34 16 28,79 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 33 35 15 27,810 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 47 16 14 25,711 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 38 20 16 25,012 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 35 17 23 25,013 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 28 30 12 23,414 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 24 14 23 20,215 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 22 27 11 20,116 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 15 33 10 19,817 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 28 20 12 19,618 Faculty of Law Comenius University 27 16 14 19,019 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 18 20 11 16,4 Faculty of Political Sciences and Matej Bel University20 15 20 12 15,5 International Relations21 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 32 - 12 14,522 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 17 10 16 14,323 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 27 - 12 13,2 Faculty of Social Sciences and Constantine the Philosopher University24 23 - 11 11,3 Health25 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 17 6 9 10,426 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 11 10 5 8 ,6 Faculty of Social and Economic Comenius University27 16 - 10 8 ,6 Sciences28 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov - - - - Faculty of Social and Economic Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín29 - - - - Relations30 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University - - - - Faculty of Mass Media University of St. Cyril and Methodius31 - - - - Communication 66
  • 67. Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group (continued) TECHNo. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average Faculty of Chemical and Food 1 Slovak Technical University 100 45 100 81,7 Technology 2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 97 77 40 71,5 3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 84 66 55 68,7 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, 4 Process Control and Technical University of Košice 78 100 23 66,8 Geotechnology 5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 74 59 25 52,8 Faculty of Electrical Engineering 6 Slovak Technical University 71 45 36 50,6 and Informatics Faculty of Environmental and 7 Technical university in Zvolen 76 41 32 49,5 Manufacturing Technology 8 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 70 44 30 48,3 Faculty of Management and 9 University of Žilina 79 44 14 45,9 Informatics10 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 89 - 49 45,811 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 70 31 32 44,2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering12 Technical University of Košice 63 45 24 44,1 and Informatics13 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 74 31 27 44,014 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 71 21 31 41,015 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 69 22 27 39,0 Faculty of Agricultural16 Slovak University of Agriculture 51 34 24 36,2 Engineering17 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 49 37 21 35,8 Faculty of Material Sciences and18 Slovak Technical University 47 26 19 30,5 Technology Faculty of Manufacturing19 Technical University of Košice 51 27 13 30,5 Technologies20 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 52 - 17 23,021 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 33 9 15 19,322 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín - - - - 67
  • 68. Three faculties of the HUM group (the KU Faculty6.1.3 “Grant Success” Group of Theology, the TvU Faculty of Theology, the TU Košice Faculty of Arts), which obtained no grant funds from KEGAVV7 Combined grant funding from the or VEGA in 2004, obtained funds from this source in 2005,VEGA and KEGA agencies per one creative the TU Košice Faculty of Arts even being the first with SKKworker 47,500 per creative worker. In the NAT group, the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences nearly tripled the receipts fromThe VEGA (Scientific Grant Agency) and KEGA (Cultural this source, while the UCM Faculty of Natural Sciencesand Educational Grant Agency) agencies have a long obtained twice as much as in 2004. The SPU Faculty oftradition in the SR and are open to all faculties and Biotechnological and Food Sciences of the AGRO groupuniversities (and only to them, excluding other scientific increased the funds from these sources as many as fiveinstitutions) although the grant level mostly varies from times. In the SOC group, except for the TvU Faculty ofgroup to group. Within a given group, however, faculties Healthcare and Social Work, the UK Faculty ofhave approximately equal opportunities to win grants. For Management, the PU Faculty of Education (even anthis reason, ARRA combined VEGA and KEGA funding into obvious decrease), the UMB Faculty of Law, the UK Facultyone indicator. It is noteworthy that the most successful of Socio-Economic Sciences (small improvement), allHUM and SOC faculties score better than average faculties obtained significantly more funds than in 2004successful faculties and compete with the most successful with the UCM Faculty of Mass Media Communicationfaculties in other groups. It can be expected that this fact having obtained 8 times more and the UMB Faculty ofshould gradually be reflected in the amount and quality of International Relations 9 times more. Two faculties (thescientific production of these faculties (criteria VV1 – PU Faculty of Management and the UMB Faculty of PoliticalVV3a). Sciences), which obtained no grant funds from KEGA or VEGA in 2004, did obtain funds from this source in 2005.Table 20: Combined grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 inSKK 000 Faculty Funding per creative worker (in SKK 000) Faculty of Arts TU Košice HUM 47,5 Faculty of Natural Sciences UK NAT 74,8 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 69,3 Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen AGRO 92,4 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports UK SOC 33,0 Faculty of Pharmacy UK MED 56,1 Grant funding from KEGA and VEGA per creative worker (in SKK 000) VV7 MED faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 60 56,1 50 40 30,7 2005 30 2006 21,0 20 17,4 10 0 Farm UK JessenLek UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ 68
  • 69. NAT faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 80 74,8 70 65,0 60 52,3 47,5 50 41,3 2005 40 34,7 2006 30 20,3 20 9,9 10 5,9 0 FMFI UK EKOLENV TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBAAGRO faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 120 100 92,4 89,5 87,6 78,7 80 2005 60 50,8 45,7 2006 40 20 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 69
  • 70. TECH faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker ChemTechn. STUBA 69,3 Elektr STUBA 66,4 Stroj TUKE 61,4 VýrTech TUKE 59,6 Hutn TUKE 54,5 Stav TUKE 49,2 Stroj ŽU 49,2 EnvirTech. TUZV 46,4 Stroj STUBA 45,6 Stav STUBA 45,4 Elektr TUKE 41,1 2006 Ban TUKE 37,9 2005 Stav ŽU 26,3 MatTechn STUBA 26,2 PriemTech TUAD 25,2 Mech SPU 24,3 Riadenia ŽU 22,2 Archit STUBA 21,7 ŠpecInž ŽU 17,8 MechTron TUAD 14,1 ŠpecTechn TUAD 13,6 Elektr ŽU 12,5 Letecká TUKE 4,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 70
  • 71. HUM faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Umení TUKE 47,5 Fil PU 38,7 HumPrír PU 30,7 Fil TVU 22,3 FilmTel VŠMU 22,2 Divadelná VŠMU 20,7 Teol.TVU 17,2 Fil UK 14,6 Pravosl.PU 14,0 VŠVU BL 12,9 Greckokat.PU 9,6 2006 MuzUm AU 8,6 2005 Fil UKF 7,8 Hum UMB 7,1 Fil UCM 6,3 Fil KU 4,8 HudTan VŠMU 3,9 Filolo UMB 3,7 Evanj UK 3,0 RímsKat UK 2,0 Teol KU 0,6 VýtvarUm AU 0,0 DramUm AU 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 71
  • 72. SOC faculty group VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker TV UK 33,0 Športu PU 32,4 Pedag TVU 29,1 Práv TVU 25,4 Ekonom TUKE 24,7 SocEkon TUAD 24,6 Pedag UKF 23,2 VerSpr UPJŠ 22,5 Pedag UK 21,4 MedzVzťah EU BA 18,3 EkonomManSPU 18,0 Obchod EU BA 16,5 Ekonom UMB 16,5 NárHosp. EU BA 16,0 SocEkon UK 13,6 PodnMan EU BA 11,9 Manažment PU 10,6 2006 Pedas ŽU 10,5 2005 Pedag KU 10,4 Pedag PU 7,8 Práv UK 7,8 PodnHosp. EU BA 7,7 HospInfo EU BA 7,6 MasMed UCM 6,5 Práv UPJŠ 6,2 Soc UKF 4,5 Pedag UMB 2,2 Polit UMB 1,9 Práv UMB 1,7 Manag UK 1,0 ZdravSoc TVU 0,9 Zdravotníctva PU 0,0 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,0 Eur.Št. SPU 0,0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 72
  • 73. per creative worker compared to other three faculties inVV8 Funding from AR (applied research) the MED group. Within individual groups of faculties, theISTC (international scientific and technical faculties had approximately equal chances of obtaining funding from the stated sources, as in the previouscooperation) and APVV (Slovak Research and examples. It can be concluded in general that in freeDevelopment Agency) grants per creative competition, the most successful faculties obtainedworker substantially more funds than in 2004. The reason probably is that APVV distributed more funds in 2005 thanIn 2005, it was mainly faculties oriented towards in 2004 but also that more projects were included in thetechnology, natural history and medicine that drew competition.funding from AR and APVV. Among faculties of medicine,the performance was considerably irregular – the UKJessenius Faculty of Medicine obtained multiples of fundingTable 21: Combined grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 inSKK 000 Faculty Funding per creative worker (in SKK 000) Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences UMB HUM 12,9 Faculty of Natural Sciences UK NAT 89,5 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics STUBA TECH 115,3 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU AGRO 91,7 Faculty of Education PU SOC 13,8 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 33,9 Grant funding from AR (applied research), ISTC (international scientific and technical cooperation) and APVV (Slovak Research and Development Agency) (in SKK 000) per creative worker VV8 MED faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 40 33,9 35 30 25 2005 20 2006 15 10 8,0 6,5 5,2 5 0 JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ 73
  • 74. NAT faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 100 89,5 90 77,9 80 68,0 70 60 2005 50 41,0 2006 40 30 20 10 5,4 3,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0 FMFI UK Prír UK EKOLENV Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Infor.STUBA Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽU TUZAGRO faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 100 91,7 90 80 76,1 70 60 49,6 2005 50 2006 40 33,7 30 20 10 3,0 1,8 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 74
  • 75. TECH faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Elektr STUBA 115,3 ChemTechn. STUBA 89,0 Stroj ŽU 86,3 PriemTech TUAD 79,4 VýrTech TUKE 54,1 ŠpecTechn TUAD 51,3 Stroj STUBA 43,0 EnvirTech. TUZV 41,2 Hutn TUKE 34,2 Stav STUBA 33,4 Ban TUKE 28,5 2006 Elektr ŽU 28,4 2005 MatTechn STUBA 18,7 Stav ŽU 18,0 Riadenia ŽU 16,8 Elektr TUKE 16,7 Stroj TUKE 14,1 Archit STUBA 11,6 ŠpecInž ŽU 8,7 MechTron TUAD 3,3 Stav TUKE 1,1 Mech SPU 0,8 Letecká TUKE 0,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 75
  • 76. HUM faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker HumPrír PU 12,9 MuzUm AU 8,2 Hum UMB 7,8 Fil UCM 1,2 Fil UK 0,5 VýtvarUm AU 0,0 VŠVU BL 0,0 Umení TUKE 0,0 Teol TVU 0,0 Teol KU 0,0 RímsKat UK 0,0 2006 Pravosl.PU 0,0 2005 HudTan VŠMU 0,0 Greckokat.PU 0,0 Filolo UMB 0,0 FilmTel VŠMU 0,0 Fil UKF 0,0 Fil TVU 0,0 Fil PU 0,0 Fil KU 0,0 Evanj UK 0,0 DramUm AU 0,0 Divadelna VŠMU 0,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 76
  • 77. SOC faculty group APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Pedag PU 13,8 Soc UKF 12,2 Ekonom TUKE 9,9 Eur.št.SPU 6,6 Pedag UK 3,4 Pedas ŽU 2,4 EkonomManSPU 2,0 Pedag TVU 0,3 ZdravSoc TVU 0,0 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,0 Zdravotníctva PU 0,0 TV UK 0,0 Športu PU 0,0 StredEur UKF 0,0 SocEkon UK 0,0 SocEkon TUAD 0,0 Práv UPJŠ 0,0 2006 Práv UMB 0,0 2005 Práv UK 0,0 Práv TVU 0,0 Polit UMB 0,0 PodnMan EU BA 0,0 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,0 Pedag UMB 0,0 Pedag UKF 0,0 Pedag KU 0,0 Obchod EU BA 0,0 NárHosp. EU BA 0,0 MedzVzťah EU BA 0,0 MasMed UCM 0,0 Manag UK 0,0 Manag PU 0,0 HospInfo EU BA 0,0 Ekonom UMB 0,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 77
  • 78. VV9 Funding from state programmes and per creative worker) than the PU Faculty of Humanitiesforeign grants and Natural Sciences, which was the best in VV8.For the purposes of this assessment, foreign funds and In the SOC group, the situation is similar with thestate programmes are evaluated separately. This often best faculty in VV9 (the SPU Faculty of European Studiesinvolves significant amounts assigned according to special and Regional Development) having obtained SKK 254,500criteria. per creative worker and the first one in VV8 (the PU Faculty of Education) having obtained only SKK 13,800 per These funds – unlike with the grant schemes of creative worker – this is a similar amount as that obtainedcriteria VV7 and VV8 – are not available equally to all by the EU Faculty of Economic Informatics being thefaculties; their purpose may be other than research or seventeenth in VV9 ranking. At the same time, indicatoreducation. However, they indicate the ability of the faculty VV9 is the only one where HUM and SOC faculties areto use all available resources for its development. When significantly the best compared to the performance ofcomparing the performance in this indicator and in faculties in other groups. What is also interesting is thatindicator VV8 (ability to obtain funding from AR, ISTC, and the faculties that are most successful in VV8 are not theAPVV grants), the greater difference in faculties’ overall best also in VV9 except for two faculties in each group (inperformance can be seen in the HUM and SOC groups. In HUM, the AU Faculty of Music and the UMB Faculty ofVV8 in general, the HUM and SOC faculties were Humanities, in the SOC group, the TU Košice Faculty ofsignificantly less successful than in obtaining state Economics and the SPU Faculty of European Studies).programmes and foreign grants. This is true of the volumeof funds obtained as well as of the number of faculties It can be assumed that the difference insuccessful in obtaining such funding. While in VV8, as performance between both indicators (VV8 and VV9) maymany as 18 HUM and 26 SOC faculties failed to obtain any be caused by the fact that the conditions for obtainingfunding at all, in VV9, there were only 6 faculties in the funds are, in the case of VV8, based on free competition,HUM group and 10 faculties in the SOC group that were while in VV9, the funds are not available equally to allcompletely unsuccessful. The amount of funds within VV9 faculties. The difference in the amounts of funds obtainedobtained by the first ranked TU Košice Faculty of Arts (SKK in VV8 and VV9 is caused by the availability of the funds.547,500 per creative worker) is several times higher thanfunding obtained by the faculty ranking first in indicator The “Funding from state programmes and foreignVV8 (the PU Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences) grants” criterion has been used this year for the first time,Even the 11th ranked “faculty” in VV9 (the Bratislava as the relevant data was not available in the last year.Academy of Fine Arts) obtained more funds (SKK 14,800Table 22: Grant funding from state programmes and foreign grants per creative worker in 2005 inSKK 000 Faculty Funding per creative worker (in SKK 000) Faculty of Arts TU Košice HUM 547,5 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK NAT 134,2 Faculty of Architecture STUBA TECH 318,4 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences SPU AGRO 102,4 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development SPU SOC 254,5 Faculty of Pharmacy UK MED 15,4 78
  • 79. Combined grant funding from state programmes and foreign grants per creative worker in 2005 (in SKK 000) VV9 MED faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker 18 15,4 16 14 11,5 12 10 2006 8 6 4 3,0 2 1,3 0 Farm UK JessenLek UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ NAT faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker 250 196,1 200 150 134,2 2006 100 72,2 50 36,2 28,3 16,5 12,6 7,6 0,0 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Infor.aInf.Tech.STUBA Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽU 79
  • 80. AGRO faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker 120 102,4 100 80 60 2006 46,9 40 24,0 20 14,5 10,0 2,3 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVLTECH faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker Archit STUBA 318,4 ChemTechn. STUBA 227,6 Elektr STUBA 104,6 PriemTech TUAD 84,6 Stroj TUKE 67,1 Stroj ŽU 52,3 RiadInf ŽU 52,2 Hutn TUKE 49,1 Elektr TUKE 46,8 Mech SPU 46,6 Stroj STUBA 41,8 Stav ŽU 37,9 2006 Elektr ŽU 37,7 ŠpecTechn TUAD 37,3 Stav STUBA 36,7 Ban TUKE 28,7 VýrTech TUKE 16,6 MechTron TUAD 13,7 Stav TUKE 12,1 MatTechn STUBA 9,7 EnvirTech. TUZV 8,0 ŠpecInž ŽU 0,6 Letecká TUKE 0,0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 80
  • 81. HUM faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker Umení TUKE 547,5 Fil KU 387,1 Greckokat.PU 123,3 MuzUm AU 99,3 Hum UMB 75,5 FilmTel VŠMU 61,9 Fil UKF 29,9 Teol.TVU 16,4 Fil UK 15,5 Fil UCM 15,1 VŠVU BL 14,8 HudTan VŠMU 9,3 2006 VýtvarUm AU 5,7 Fil PU 4,7 HumPrír PU 4,1 DramUm AU 3,2 Filolo UMB 0,4 Divadelná VŠMU 0,0 Evanj UK 0,0 Fil TVU 0,0 Pravosl.PU 0,0 RímsKat UK 0,0 Teol KU 0,0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 81
  • 82. SOC faculty group Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker Eur.Št. SPU 254,5 Ekonom TUKE 235,7 Ekonom UMB 190,5 SocEkon UK 86,5 Práv UK 73,1 SocEkon TUAD 72,9 ZdravSoc TVU 54,0 Pedag TVU 43,7 Manag UK 42,0 Zdravotníctva PU 32,0 EkonomManSPU 30,7 MedzVzťah EU BA 28,9 Obchod EU BA 28,9 Pedag UK 21,9 Pedag UKF 18,7 Pedag KU 18,4 HospInfo EU BA 13,3 2006 NárHosp. EU BA 8,4 Pedas ŽU 4,9 Soc UKF 3,6 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 3,3 Pedag UMB 3,0 PodnMan EU BA 2,6 TV UK 1,9 Manažment PU 0,0 MasMed UCM 0,0 Pedag PU 0,0 PodnHosp. EU BA 0,0 Polit UMB 0,0 Práv TVU 0,0 Práv UMB 0,0 Práv UPJŠ 0,0 Športu PU 0,0 VerSpr UPJŠ 0,0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 82
  • 83. VV10 Total grant funding from agencies percreative worker38 In the TECH group, the best performer was theThis indicator is based on the total of all grant funding STU Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informationfrom public sources that is allocated by an independent Technology with SKK 181,700 per CW, which is the highestexpert commission. Thus, this includes all grant funds from amount of funds among all faculties, while the TUADcriteria VV7 and VV8, however, excluding those evaluated Faculty of Mechatronics came at the bottom of the tablein criterion VV9 or other higher education institutions’ with SKK 17,500. In the AGRO group, a CW at the SPUresources other than subsidies. In ARRA’s opinion, VV10 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources was able tohas a special informative value – it reflects the measure of obtain SKK 170,400. The TU Zvolen Faculty of Woodfaculties’ ability to obtain funding for their main activities Sciences came last with SKK 84,500 per CW. In the MEDusing their own efforts in competition with the others. group, the most successful faculty was the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (like in the last year), where on In the HUM group of faculties, the TU Košice average each CW had SKK 64,600, while one CW of theFaculty of Arts got the greatest amount of funding per CW, UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine had on average SKK 23,900 fromamounting in total to SKK 47,500. Two faculties out of 23 the stated funding. It is interesting that 4 faculties out ofdid not gain any funding in this “competition” (there were 100 were unable to gain a single koruna of public funding4 such faculties last year). In the SOC group, at the TU for their research or development or artistic projects (evenKošice Faculty of Economics, one CW was able to gain on if this is half of the last year’s figure).average SKK 34,500. Once again two faculties (from 36;four last year) did not obtain any funding for theirresearch. In the NAT group, like in the last year, the mostsuccessful faculty was the UK Faculty of Natural Scienceswith an average of SKK 154,300 per CW, while at the ŽUFaculty of Natural Sciences 1 CW earned on average SKK5,900.Table 23: Overall grant funding from agenciesper creative worker in 2005 in SKK 000Faculty Funding per creative worker (in SKK 000)Faculty of Arts TU Košice HUM 47,5Faculty of Natural Sciences UK NAT 164,3Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics STUBA TECH 181,7Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU AGRO 170,4Faculty of Economics TU Košice SOC 34,5Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 64,638 Indicated as VV9 in the last year’s assessment. 83
  • 84. Overall funding from agency grants per creative worker in 2005 (in SKK 000) VV10MED faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 70,0 64,6 64,1 60,0 50,0 40,0 2005 26,2 2006 30,0 23,9 20,0 10,0 0,0 JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠNAT faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 180 164,3 160 140 130,2 115,5 120 105,9 100 2005 80 2006 60 46,7 34,7 40 23,6 20 9,9 5,9 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZv Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 84
  • 85. AGRO faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker 180 170,4 163,7 160 140 120 95,3 94,2 92,5 100 84,5 2005 80 2006 60 40 20 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV VeterLek. BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU UVL 85
  • 86. TECH faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Elektr STUBA 181,7 ChemTechn. STUBA 158,4 Stroj ŽU 135,5 VýrTech TUKE 113,7 PriemTech TUAD 104,6 Hutn TUKE 88,8 Stroj STUBA 88,6 EnvirTech. TUZV 87,6 Stav STUBA 78,8 Stroj TUKE 75,5 Ban TUKE 66,4 2006 ŠpecTechn TUAD 64,9 2005 Elektr TUKE 57,8 Stav TUKE 50,4 MatTechn STUBA 44,8 Stav ŽU 44,2 Elektr ŽU 40,9 Riadenia ŽU 39,0 Archit STUBA 33,3 ŠpecInž ŽU 26,6 Mech SPU 25,1 MechTron TUAD 17,5 0 50 100 150 200 86
  • 87. HUM faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Umení TUKE 47,5 HumPrír PU 43,6 Fil PU 38,7 Fil TVU 22,3 FilmTel VŠMU 22,2 Divadelná VŠMU 20,7 Teol.TVU 17,2 MuzUm AU 16,8 Fil UK 15,1 Hum UMB 14,9 Pravosl.PU 14,0 2006 VŠVU BL 12,9 2005 Greckokat.PU 9,6 Fil UKF 7,8 Fil UCM 7,5 HudTan VŠMU 6,7 Fil KU 4,8 Filolo UMB 3,7 Evanj UK 3,0 RímsKat UK 2,0 Teol KU 0,6 VýtvarUm AU 0,0 DramUm AU 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 87
  • 88. SOC faculty group Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker Ekonom TUKE 34,5 TV UK 33,0 Športu PU 32,4 Pedag TVU 29,4 Práv TVU 25,4 Pedag UK 24,8 SocEkon TUAD 24,6 Pedag UKF 23,2 VerSpr UPJŠ 22,5 Pedag PU 21,6 EkonomManSPU 20,0 MedzVzťah EU BA 18,3 Soc UKF 16,7 Obchod EU BA 16,5 Ekonom UMB 16,5 NárHosp. EU BA 16,0 SocEkon UK 13,6 2006 Pedas ŽU 12,9 2005 PodnMan EU BA 11,9 Manažment PU 10,6 Pedag KU 10,4 Práv UK 7,8 PodnHosp. EU BA 7,7 HospInfo EU BA 7,6 Eur.Št. SPU 6,6 MasMed UCM 6,5 Práv UPJŠ 6,2 Pedag UMB 2,2 Polit UMB 1,9 Práv UMB 1,7 Manag UK 1,0 ZdravSoc TVU 0,9 Zdravotníctva PU 0,0 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 88
  • 89. Table 24: Overview of the results in the Grant Success group AGRONo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 95 83 46 100 80,9 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food2 Slovak University of Agriculture 85 100 23 100 77,1 Resources Faculty of Biotechnology and Food3 Slovak University of Agriculture 49 54 100 58 65,4 Sciences Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape4 Slovak University of Agriculture 97 3 14 57 42,7 Engineering5 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 100 2 10 58 42,36 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 55 37 2 52 36,4 HUMNo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 100 - 100 100 75,0 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural University of Prešov 2 65 100 1 92 64,3 Sciences 3 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 82 - 1 82 41,0 4 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 18 63 18 35 33,8 5 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 15 61 14 31 30,2 6 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 47 - 11 47 26,2 7 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 47 - - 47 23,5 8 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 10 - 71 10 22,8 9 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 44 - - 44 21,810 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 36 - 3 36 18,811 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 31 4 3 32 17,212 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 20 - 23 20 15,813 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 29 - - 29 14,714 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 27 - 3 27 14,315 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 13 9 3 16 10,2 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher16 16 - 5 16 9,5 University17 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 14 - 3 14 7,818 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 8 - 0 8 3,919 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 6 - - 6 3,1 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Comenius University20 4 - - 4 2,1 Cyril and Methodius21 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts - - 1 - 0,322 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - 1 - 0,1 MEDNo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 55 100 75 100 82,4 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 100 24 100 99 80,7 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 37 15 20 41 28,2 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 31 19 8 37 23,9 NATNo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 100 100 54 100 88,5 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Comenius University 2 63 76 100 70 77,4 Informatics 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 87 46 27 64 56,0 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher 4 55 6 21 28 27,7 University Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Technical university in Zvolen 5 46 - - 21 16,9 Sciences 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 27 4 6 14 12,7 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 13 - 9 6 7,2 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 8 - 12 4 5,9 89
  • 90. Table 24: Overview of the results in the Grant Success group (continued) SOCNo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 75 72 93 100 84,8 2 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 100 - 1 95 49,1 3 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 88 2 17 85 48,2 4 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 24 100 - 63 46,5 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in 5 75 - 29 71 43,7 Trenčín 6 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 50 - 75 48 43,1 7 Faculty of Education Comenius University 65 25 9 72 42,5 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Slovak University of Agriculture 8 - 48 100 19 41,7 Development Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher 9 14 89 1 48 38,0 University10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 77 - - 74 37,7 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher11 70 - 7 67 36,2 University12 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 55 15 12 58 34,913 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 68 - - 65 33,314 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 55 - 11 53 29,915 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 41 - 34 39 28,716 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 50 - 11 48 27,317 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 49 - 3 46 24,6 Faculty of Operation and Economics of University of Žilina18 32 17 2 37 22,0 Transport and Communications19 Faculty of Law Comenius University 24 - 29 23 18,720 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 36 - 1 34 17,821 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 31 - 7 30 17,222 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 23 - 5 22 12,523 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 23 - - 22 11,424 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 20 - - 19 9,625 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 19 - - 18 9,226 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 3 - 21 3 6,727 Faculty of Management Comenius University 3 - 16 3 5,628 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 7 - 1 6 3,529 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov - - 13 - 3,1 Faculty of Political Sciences and Matej Bel University30 6 - - 6 2,9 International Relations31 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 5 - - 5 2,6 TECHNo. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 77 71 87 84,0 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and 2 Slovak Technical University 96 100 33 100 82,2 Informatics 3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 75 16 75 59,2 4 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 86 47 5 63 50,2 Alexander Dubček University in 5 Faculty of Industrial Technologies 36 69 27 58 47,4 Trenčín 6 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 79 30 15 49 43,2 7 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 66 37 13 49 41,2 8 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 89 12 21 42 40,9 9 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 31 10 100 18 39,9 Faculty of Environmental and10 Technical university in Zvolen 67 36 3 48 38,3 Manufacturing Technology11 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 66 29 12 43 37,3 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process12 Technical University of Košice 55 25 9 37 31,2 Control and Geotechnology Faculty of Electrical Engineering and13 Technical University of Košice 59 14 15 32 30,1 Informatics Alexander Dubček University in14 Faculty of Special Technologies 20 45 12 36 27,9 Trenčín15 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 71 1 4 28 25,916 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 38 16 12 24 22,417 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 32 15 16 21 21,1 Faculty of Material Sciences and18 Slovak Technical University 38 16 3 25 20,4 Technology19 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 18 25 12 23 19,320 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 35 1 15 14 16,121 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 26 8 0 15 12,0 Alexander Dubček University in22 Faculty of Mechatronics 20 3 4 10 9,3 Trenčín 90
  • 91. number of part-time students occurred also in the TECH and NAT groups, which had traditionally lower numbers of6.2 Study and education students per teacher. As it has been already mentioned, the number of6.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group students per teacher reflects the level the tutor’s individual approach to students. It is also possible to speak of theSV1 Number of students divided by the number of technical requirements of tuition (e.g. laboratories,teachers studios, sports facilities, clinics), or, as the case may be, ofARRA believes that it is better for students if there is a a lower interest in the given faculty among applicants (andsmaller number of students per teacher. To a greater possibly related over-employment of teachers in theextent, this allows the teacher to offer a more individual faculty resulting therefrom) or a lack of teachers. It is noapproach to the student, which almost certainly helps to surprise that the lowest ratios are to be found in facultiesincrease the quality of education and research activity in oriented towards art, sport or medicine. However,the institution. For this reason a higher number of points questions may arise in the cases where faculties withwas given for a lower number of students per teacher. At identical or similar orientation show significant differences.the same time it is true to say that low numbers of A point worth noting is the role played in this indicator bystudents per teacher lead to problems in financing part time students. Sometimes the number of part timeuniversities and faculties because a major part of funding students is greater than the number of full time students.is based on the number of students. ARRA, however, aims For example, in the case of the TvU Faculty of Healthcareto look at universities through the eyes of students or and Social Work the proportion (part time/full time) equalsprospective students for whom the quality that the school 4, which is by far the highest in the faculties of the Slovakoffers them is important. In discussion of the adequacy of universities. In 16 faculties out of 100 (in 2004, the figurethese proportions the interests of students in higher was 15) there are more part time than full time students.education, the higher education institutions themselves,and the financing institutions are therefore in conflict. In the 2006 academic year, the percentage of part-time students was 33.2 of the total of 169,506 students of public higher education institutions. The year- Table 25: Number of students per teacher on-year increase of part-time students (2004 – 2005) wasFaculty Number of full- and part-time students 5,942; for full time study, this figure per teacher amounted to 7,003. From this it is clearFaculty of Performing Arts AU Banská Bystrica HUM 3,6Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK NAT 7,8 that education in Slovak universities isFaculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 7,9 gradually becoming more of a massUniversity of Veterinary Medicine AGRO 6,3 phenomenon also thanks to the part-timeFaculty of Physical Education and Sports UK SOC 16,0Faculty of Medicine UK MED 6,7 study. On the margin of this it should be emphasised that part time study in Slovakia is not identical in character with distance learning, whose popularity is increasing in other countries. Higher numbers of students per teacher are to befound in SOC and HUM faculties, which relates to the factthat these faculties have as a rule a higher number ofpart-time students. A relatively large increase of the 91
  • 92. Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of teachers in 2005 SV1MED faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher 12 10,2 10 8,8 8,2 8 6,7 2005 6 2006 4 2 0 Lek UK Farm UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UKNAT faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher 35 30 28,8 26,1 25 21,3 20 18,7 16,2 2005 15 13,4 2006 11,1 10,2 10 7,8 5 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 92
  • 93. AGRO faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher 25 21,8 20 18,1 17,2 16,6 15 13,6 2005 2006 10 6,3 5 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 93
  • 94. TECH faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher ChemTechn. STUBA 7,9 Stav TUKE 10,3 Archit STUBA 10,7 Stroj STUBA 11,4 Elektr STUBA 11,5 Hutn TUKE 12,7 Stav STUBA 13,7 Stroj ŽU 14,1 Stav ŽU 14,3 PriemTech TUAD 14,4 Elektr ŽU 14,5 2006 Letecká TUKE 14,6 2005 EnvirTech. TUZV 14,7 Elektr TUKE 15,2 ŠpecTechn TUAD 16,5 Riadenia ŽU 16,5 MatTechn STUBA 17,7 Mech SPU 18,0 Stroj TUKE 19,0 VýrTech TUKE 20,9 MechTron TUAD 23,6 Ban TUKE 25,7 ŠpecInž ŽU 31,5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 94
  • 95. HUM faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher MuzUm AU 3,6 DramUm AU 4,4 HudTan VŠMU 4,5 VŠVU BL 4,9 VýtvarUm AU 5,5 RímsKat UK 5,6 Divadelná VŠMU 7,0 Evanj UK 7,6 Umení TUKE 7,7 FilmTel VŠMU 8,1 Filolo UMB 9,4 10,3 2006 Teol.TVU 2005 Fil UK 10,3 Fil TVU 16,4 Fil PU 16,8 Fil UCM 17,9 Fil KU 23,0 HumPrír PU 23,0 Fil UKF 25,1 Pravosl.PU 29,4 Hum UMB 30,6 Greckokat.PU 32,3 Teol KU 47,3 0 10 20 30 40 50 95
  • 96. SOC faculty group Number of full- and part-time students per teacher Športu PU 8,9 TV UK 16,0 Polit UMB 16,2 Zdravotníctva PU 16,3 Práv TVU 18,4 ZdravSoc TVU 18,4 SocEkon UK 19,0 MedzVzťah EU BA 19,5 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 19,5 Pedag UK 20,1 Pedag UKF 21,2 Ekonom TUKE 21,3 PodnMan EU BA 21,9 NárHosp. EU BA 22,5 EkonomManSPU 23,3 HospInfo EU BA 23,4 Práv UPJŠ 23,4 24,3 2006 Pedas ŽU 2005 Práv UMB 24,4 PodnHosp. EU BA 25,0 Pedag TVU 26,8 Ekonom UMB 26,9 Pedag PU 27,2 VerSpr UPJŠ 28,4 Obchod EU BA 30,9 Pedag UMB 32,3 MasMed UCM 33,7 Práv UK 35,1 Pedag KU 36,3 Soc UKF 37,7 Eur.Št. SPU 41,9 Manažment PU 44,5 Manag UK 44,6 SocEkon TUAD 50,8 Zdravotníctva KU 71,9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 96
  • 97. SV2 Number of students divided by thenumber of professors and associate professorsValues for selected faculties.Table 26: Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of professors andassociate professors in 2005 Faculty Number of full- and part-time students per professor and associate professor Faculty of Performing Arts AU Banská Bystrica HUM 8,6 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK NAT 16,6 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 13,6 University of Veterinary Medicine AGRO 13,5 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU SOC 40,5 Faculty of Medicine UK MED 19,9 TvU Faculty of Philosophy (1.8 times) and the UMB FacultyARRA’s analysis shows that the student-teacher ratio is of Humanities (1.6 times). Conversely, a moderate dropsignificantly higher in faculties with a higher number of occurred in the TECH group. There were sharp increasespart time students. This parameter may be high due to of full-time students, e.g., at the ŽU Faculty of Naturaltwo reasons. The institution may have more students in a Sciences (2.5 times) or at the UKF Faculty of Socialcertain field of study than other institutions of similar Sciences and Healthcare with an over three-fold increase.orientation, or the institution has fewer professors and Besides these extremes, however, only small changesassociate processors than other institutions with similar occurred in general.orientation. A record in absolute figures is held by the KU The ratio of students to professors and associate Faculty of Healthcare having 503 students per professorprofessors is important for the academic quality of (associate professor). However, in this group of faculties,subjects but also for the likelihood of individual contact as many as 12 out of the total of 35 have more than 100between students and the faculty members with the students per professor (associate professor).highest qualifications. Once again it is possible to observea similar trend to that observed in the case of the SV1 In total, Slovak higher education institutions haveindicator, although in comparison with 2004, several 16 faculties with more than 100 students per professordramatic changes occurred. (associate professor). As many as four-fold increase occurred in the caseof the KU Faculty of Theology, but it also increased at the 97
  • 98. Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of professors and associate professors in 2005 SV2 MED faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor 40 35 33,0 29,9 30 27,7 25 19,9 2005 20 2006 15 10 5 0 JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ NAT faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor 140 120 107,8 100 2006 76,6 2005 80 74,6 68,3 60 36,0 37,7 40 25,5 21,1 16,6 20 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UCM Prír UPJŠ Infor.aInf.Tech. STUBA Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽU 98
  • 99. AGRO faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor 90 80 69,5 70 60 50 44,9 2006 41,7 39,1 40 2005 30 24,2 20 13,5 10 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 99
  • 100. TECH faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor ChemTechn. STUBA 13,6 Elektr STUBA 24,4 Hutn TUKE 26,3 Stroj STUBA 27,3 Archit STUBA 28,7 Stav TUKE 29,4 PriemTech TUAD 33,3 EnvirTech. TUZV 33,8 ŠpecTechn TUAD 34,5 Elektr ŽU 34,6 Stroj ŽU 35,5 2006 Stav STUBA 35,7 2005 Elektr TUKE 36,4 Stav ŽU 36,6 Mech SPU 38,3 Letecká TUKE 52,3 Stroj TUKE 53,7 MatTechn STUBA 56,0 VýrTech TUKE 63,0 Ban TUKE 67,6 Riadenia ŽU 72,7 MechTron TUAD 77,7 ŠpecInž ŽU 79,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 100
  • 101. HUM faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor MuzUm AU 8,6 HudTan VŠMU 9,9 DramUm AU 10,4 Divadelná VŠMU 11,7 VŠVU BL 12,2 VýtvarUm AU 12,6 FilmTel VŠMU 17,4 Teol.TVU 17,7 Evanj UK 20,2 Umení TUKE 28,6 Fil UK 28,7 30,9 2006 RímsKat UK 2005 Filolo UMB 42,0 Fil TVU 44,0 Fil PU 55,8 HumPrír PU 63,0 Fil UCM 63,9 Fil KU 80,8 Pravosl.PU 93,3 Fil UKF 95,5 Greckokat.PU 106,4 Hum UMB 114,4 Teol KU 181,3 0 50 100 150 200 101
  • 102. SOC faculty group Number of students per professor and associate professor Športu PU 30,1 ZdravSoc TVU 40,5 TV UK 44,5 Práv TVU 46,8 SocEkon UK 47,0 NárHosp. EU BA 52,9 Polit UMB 55,3 EkonomManSPU 60,0 Práv UPJŠ 60,2 PodnMan EU BA 60,5 Pedag TVU 64,0 Pedas ŽU 67,4 Pedag UMB 74,9 MedzVzťah EU BA 76,3 Obchod EU BA 77,1 PodnHosp. EU BA 78,4 HospInfo EU BA 79,4 2005 Ekonom TUKE 79,7 2006 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 86,3 Pedag UK 93,6 Pedag UKF 94,4 Práv UK 95,6 Práv UMB 99,3 VerSpr UPJŠ 110,8 Ekonom UMB 113,5 Manag UK 129,1 Pedag KU 140,1 MasMed UCM 150,2 Pedag PU 150,7 Soc UKF 156,6 Eur.Št. SPU 160,3 Zdravotníctva PU 160,8 Manažment PU 172,4 SocEkon TUAD 204,5 Zdravotníctva KU 503,5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 102
  • 103. SV3 Proportion of teachers with PhDAs an illustration we give the values of this ratio for a numberof faculties.Table 27: The ratio of teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers Faculty Proportion of teachers with a PhD to the total number of teachers at the faculty (%) Orthodox Theological Faculty PU HUM 86 Faculty of Natural Sciences UK NAT 83 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 86 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU AGRO 89 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU SOC 90 Faculty of Pharmacy UK MED 72 oriented faculties are somewhat better ranging from 86%The values for this ratio vary, but correlation with success in the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology toin the area of publications and citations is relatively low. A 51% in the TU Košice Faculty of Aeronautics. In the casemore detailed study of the data shows that even in the of the MED group faculties, the range is relatively narrow:longer established faculties the proportion of teachers 72% for the UK Faculty of Pharmacy and 57% for thewithout a PhD is relatively high. UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine. The best results are shown by the faculties in the AGRO group where the proportion of We assume that all active professors and associate teachers with PhD degrees was as high as 89% in the SPUprofessors operating in Slovak universities have gained the Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources (with the TvUacademic degree of PhD (or its equivalent CSc, Dr, ArtD, Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work, 90% - the highestThDr). For other teachers the PhD degree is a sign of a value of all for faculties of Slovak universities). The lastcertain scientific qualification and therefore also a certain placed faculty in this group was the TU Zvolen Faculty oflevel of quality. We can assume that the higher the Wood Sciences with 67%.proportion of teachers having the academic degree of PhD(and its equivalent) in the overall number of teachers, the Although the situation somewhat improved inhigher the potential level of quality in the research and comparison with 2004, it remains worrying that amongsteducational activity of the faculty. The differences are all teachers in Slovak universities only 45% (in 2004, thehighly pronounced in the faculties oriented towards the figure was even only 40%) have a PhD degree or itshumanities. While, for example, 86% of all teachers at the equivalent, which means that more than half of allPU Faculty of Orthodox Theology have a PhD degree (it teachers in Slovak higher education have not completedwas 79% in 2004), only every third teacher at the TU the third level of higher education. A possible objection isKošice Faculty of Arts has such a degree. There are even that this group includes young faculty employees under 35greater differences in social science faculties. 86% of the who are still studying; they do not however by far amountteaching staff at the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social to 55% of all university teachers. There are faculties withWork has a PhD degree (it was 86% in 2004), while at the satisfactory numbers of teachers with PhD (75% and moresimilarly oriented PU Faculty of Healthcare only every fifth – 22 out of 100 faculties), but also ones that do not reachteacher has this degree (22%; the lowest value of all even two thirds of teachers with PhD (38 such faculties).among the faculties of Slovak universities; in 2004 it was The high proportion of teachers without a PhD teaching in19%). Not even the faculties oriented towards the natural the faculties of Slovak universities is still alarming.sciences escape this trend to a large extent. While the UKFaculty of Natural Sciences has this ratio at 83%, the ŽUFaculty of Natural Sciences has 37%. The technology- 103
  • 104. Ratio of teachers with a PhD to the total number of teachers in 2005 SV3MED faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD 80% 72% 70% 67% 62% 60% 57% 50% 2005 40% 2006 30% 20% 10% 0% Farm UK JessenLek UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠNAT faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD 100% 86% 90% 79% 77% 80% 74% 72% 70% 70% 69% 70% 60% 51% 2005 50% 2006 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Infor.aInf.Tech. STUBA Prír UCM Prír UMB Prír UKF Prír ŽU 104
  • 105. AGRO faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD 100% 89% 90% 84% 83% 77% 80% 72% 67% 70% 60% 2005 50% 2006 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 105
  • 106. TECH faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD ChemTechn. STUBA 86% Elektr STUBA 79% Stroj ŽU 78% VýrTech TUKE 78% Hutn TUKE 77% Stav STUBA 74% Mech SPU 74% Elektr TUKE 74% ŠpecInž ŽU 73% EnvirTech. TUZV 72% Archit STUBA 70% 2006 Ban TUKE 70% 2005 Stav TUKE 69% Elektr ŽU 69% Stav ŽU 68% Stroj TUKE 68% Stroj STUBA 67% ŠpecTechn TUAD 63% MatTechn STUBA 59% PriemTech TUAD 59% MechTron TUAD 53% Riadenia ŽU 52% Letecká TUKE 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 106
  • 107. HUM faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD Pravosl.PU 86% Teol.TVU 84% Fil UK 76% Evanj UK 72% DramUm AU 72% HumPrír PU 71% Greckokat.PU 70% FilmTel VŠMU 67% Fil PU 66% Fil TVU 65% HudTan VŠMU 64% 2006 Divadelná VŠMU 63% 2005 MuzUm AU 61% Teol KU 57% Fil UCM 55% Fil UKF 53% Fil KU 50% VŠVU BL 50% Hum UMB 49% RímsKat UK 47% VýtvarUm AU 47% Filolo UMB 37% Umení TUKE 33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 107
  • 108. SOC faculty group Proportion of teachers with PhD ZdravSoc TVU 90% TV UK 87% SocEkon UK 71% Soc UKF 71% Sredoeur.Št.UKF 71% Eur.Št. SPU 70% MedzVzťah EU BA 69% Práv UPJŠ 69% NárHosp. EU BA 68% Obchod EU BA 68% Pedag UMB 67% PodnHosp. EU BA 66% Práv UK 66% Pedas ŽU 65% Športu PU 65% Pedag UK 64% Pedag TVU 63% 2006 EkonomManSPU 63% 2005 Ekonom TUKE 62% Práv UMB 57% Ekonom UMB 57% Manag UK 57% HospInfo EU BA 57% Práv TVU 55% VerSpr UPJŠ 54% PodnMan EU BA 54% Manažment PU 52% Pedag PU 50% Pedag UKF 50% SocEkon TUAD 50% Polit UMB 47% Pedag KU 45% MasMed UCM 36% Zdravotníctva KU 34% Zdravotníctva PU 22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 108
  • 109. SV4 The number of professors and associateprofessors divided by the number of all teachersThis ratio varies between 10% and 60% and for mostfaculties the value is in the middle of this range.Table 28: Ratio of the number of teachers with the degree of professor or associate professor to the totalnumber of teachers in 2005 Faculty Proportion of professors and associate professors to the total number of teachers at the faculty (%) Faculty of Theatre Arts VSMU HUM 60 Faculty of Natural Sciences UPJS NAT 48 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA TECH 58 Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen AGRO 56 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU SOC 45 Faculty of Pharmacy UK MED 34 Theology. There is the same situation in the SOC facultyCompared to 2004, this parameter only very slightly group: 45% the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Socialchanged for the better. Work and 10% the PU Faculty of Healthcare (which is the lowest value for any faculty of a Slovak university). There In universities, professors and associate professors are also differences among the faculties oriented towardsare considered to be the teachers with the highest the natural sciences: the UPJŠ Faculty of Natural Sciencesqualification. This means that the more such teachers a has the greatest proportion with 48% with the UMBfaculty has, the greater should be the quality of its Faculty of Natural Sciences ranging last with 24%.educational and research activities. A higher number of Similarly in the case of the TECH group faculties, STUprofessors and associate professors also means a Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology has 58% andpotentially higher number of accredited study programs, a the ŽU Faculty of Management and Informatics has 23%.potentially higher number of grants etc. The results are The distribution in the AGRO group is similar: 56% in thenot dominated by any of the faculty groups but there are TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry and 31% in the STU Facultyalso relatively large differences within all the groups. It is of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering. The MEDworrying that out of 100 faculties assessed, the proportion group of faculties has the smallest differences: 34% theof associate professors and professors in the total teaching UK Faculty of Pharmacy and 27% the UPJŠ Faculty ofstaff exceeded 50% in only four (three in 2004) cases (the Medicine.VŠMU Theatre Faculty 60%, the TvU Faculty of Theology58%, the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology There are faculties in Slovak public higher58%, and the TUZV Faculty of Forestry 56%). education institutions where the number of associated professors and professors does not reach even one third of the number of teachers. Such faculties comprise nearly one half (42) of the total. There are very sharp differences in the facultiesoriented towards the humanities: 60% the VŠMU TheatreFaculty and 18% the UK Faculty of Roman Catholic 109
  • 110. The number of professors and associate professors divided by the number of all teachers in 2005 SV4 MED faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors 40% 34% 34% 35% 29% 30% 27% 25% 2005 20% 2006 15% 10% 5% 0% Farm UK JessenLek UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ NAT faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors 60% 48% 47% 50% 44% 43% 39% 40% 37% 31% 2005 30% 24% 24% 2006 20% 10% 0% FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 110
  • 111. AGRO faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors 60% 56% 50% 47% 44% 40% 40% 40% 31% 2005 30% 2006 20% 10% 0% Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 111
  • 112. TECH faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors ChemTechn. STUBA 58% Hutn TUKE 48% ŠpecTechn TUAD 48% Elektr STUBA 47% Mech SPU 47% EnvirTech. TUZV 43% PriemTech TUAD 43% Stroj STUBA 42% Elektr ŽU 42% Elektr TUKE 42% ŠpecInž ŽU 40% 2006 Stroj ŽU 40% 2005 Stav ŽU 39% Stav STUBA 38% Ban TUKE 38% Archit STUBA 37% Stroj TUKE 35% Stav TUKE 35% VýrTech TUKE 33% MatTechn STUBA 32% MechTron TUAD 30% Letecká TUKE 28% Riadenia ŽU 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 112
  • 113. HUM faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors Divadelná VŠMU 60% Teol.TVU 58% FilmTel VŠMU 46% HudTan VŠMU 46% VýtvarUm AU 43% MuzUm AU 42% DramUm AU 42% VŠVU BL 40% Evanj UK 38% Fil TVU 37% HumPrír PU 37% 2006 Fil UK 36% 2005 Pravosl.PU 32% Greckokat.PU 30% Fil PU 30% Fil KU 28% Fil UCM 28% Umení TUKE 27% Hum UMB 27% Fil UKF 26% Teol KU 26% Filolo UMB 22% RímsKat UK 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 113
  • 114. SOC faculty group The proportion of professors and associate professors ZdravSoc TVU 45% Pedag UMB 43% NárHosp. EU BA 42% Pedag TVU 42% SocEkon UK 40% Obchod EU BA 40% Práv TVU 39% EkonomManSPU 39% Práv UPJŠ 39% Práv UK 37% PodnMan EU BA 36% Pedas ŽU 36% TV UK 36% Manag UK 35% PodnHosp. EU BA 32% Športu PU 29% HospInfo EU BA 29% 2006 Polit UMB 29% 2005 Ekonom TUKE 27% Eur.Št. SPU 26% Pedag KU 26% Manažment PU 26% VerSpr UPJŠ 26% MedzVzťah EU BA 25% SocEkon TUAD 25% Práv UMB 25% Soc UKF 24% Ekonom UMB 24% Sredoeur.Št.UKF 23% MasMed UCM 22% Pedag UKF 22% Pedag UK 21% Pedag PU 18% Zdravotníctva KU 14% Zdravotníctva PU 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 114
  • 115. SV5 Average age of professorsThe average age of professors (here referring to activeprofessors) ranges from 51 to 65 years, and in mostfaculties the value is in the middle of this distribution.Table 29: The average age of teachers in the functional position of professor in 2005 Faculty Average age of active professor Greek Catholic Theological Faculty PU HUM 51 Faculty of Natural Sciences UMB NAT 53 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology TU Zvolen (and others) TECH 54 Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen AGRO 58 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences UK SOC 55 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 56 with the average age of active professors being 53 years. The criterion of the average age of professors In this group (NAT) the “oldest” is the UCM Faculty ofholding a functional position (active professor) is a typical Natural Sciences (63 years). The difference in this group ofexample of a criterion that can be seen from a number of faculties is 10 years. In the TECH faculty group, thepoints of view. A higher average age may represent a difference is 11 years between the TU Zvolen Faculty ofhigher level of experience, proven traditional research, Ecology and Environmental Sciences with the average ofmore conservative and possibly more mature view of 54 years (and additional five faculties with the samematters. It can also be viewed negatively as indicating that average: the TU Košice Faculty of Electrical Engineeringprofessors are overage with low performance and low and Informatics, the ŽU Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,dynamism. A staff of professors with a lower average age the TU Košice Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Controlmay, on the other hand, be perceived as precisely the and Geotechnology, the TU Košice Faculty ofopposite, as dynamic, productive, enthusiastic and capable Manufacturing Technologies, the TU Košice Faculty ofof rapid reactions to a changing situation, but at the same Aeronautics) and the TUAD Faculty of Industrialtime also a group with experience that is little for the Technologies (65 years). The smallest differences are inhighest rank of the academic hierarchy. We believe that a the AGRO group (a difference of 7 years): the TU Zvolengood combination is a balance of both categories. It is Faculty of Wood Sciences (and two more institutions: thehowever also necessary to bear in mind that under the University of Veterinary Medicine and the TU ZvolenHigher Education Act, a university teacher may no longer Faculty of Forestry) with 58 years and the SPU Faculty ofbe employed on an unlimited employment contract or, in Horticulture and Landscape Engineering with 65 years. Ageneral, act as the guarantor of a study program after similar situation applies in the case of the MED group ofreaching the age of sixty five. faculties (a difference of 6 years): 56 years in the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and 62 years in the UK In the faculties oriented towards the humanities Faculty of Medicine.we can observe differences of up to 15 years. While theaverage age of the active professors at the “youngest” The average age of active professors in SlovakSlovak faculty, the PU Faculty of Greek Catholic Theology, universities is 58 years. The average age of activeis only 51 years, it is as many as 65 years at the TvU professors with the academic rank of DrSc., i.e. the peopleFaculty of Theology. There is a similar situation in faculties with the highest academic qualification, is four yearsoriented towards the social sciences (the difference is 10 higher. It can be concluded that the high age of professorsyears). The UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences (and 3 and associate professors continues to be alarming.more faculties with it – the UK Faculty of Education, thePU Faculty of Education, and the KU Faculty of Healthcare) In comparison with 2004, the situation improvedwith the professors having an average age of 55 years are for example in the fact that there is no faculty of a publicthe “youngest” faculties. On the other hand, the EU higher education institution with the average age ofFaculty of Business Management with the average age of professors over 65 years while there are four faculties with65 years is the “oldest” in the group. the average age of professors of 65 years. The “youngest” faculty in the group with naturalscience orientation is the UMB Faculty of Natural Sciences 115
  • 116. Average age of professors holding a functional position (active professor) in 2005 SV5MED faculty group The average age of active professors 65 62 60 60 57 56 2005 55 2006 50 45 40 Farm UK Lek UK JessenLek Lek UPJŠ UKNAT faculty group The average age of active professors 65 63 61 61 59 60 57 58 58 55 55 53 2005 50 2006 45 40 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 116
  • 117. AGRO faculty group The average age of active professors 70 65 65 61 58 58 58 59 60 2005 55 2006 50 45 40 TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. Záhrad VeterLek. Drev Agro SPU SPU SPU UVLTECH faculty group The average age of active professors VýrTech TUKE 54 Stroj ŽU 54 Letecká TUKE 54 EnvirTech. TUZV 54 Elektr TUKE 54 Ban TUKE 54 ŠpecInž ŽU 56 Stroj TUKE 56 Stav ŽU 56 MatTechn STUBA 56 Elektr ŽU 56 2006 Stav TUKE 57 2005 Stav STUBA 57 Archit STUBA 57 Riadenia ZU 58 Mech SPU 58 ChemTechn. STUBA 58 Hutn TUKE 58 Stroj STUBA 59 Elektr STUBA 59 ŠpecTechn TUAD 60 MechTron TUAD 64 PriemTech TUAD 65 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 117
  • 118. HUM faculty group The average age of active professors Greckokat.PU 51 HudTan VŠMU 52 FilmTel VŠMU 53 Fil PU 53 Filolo UMB 54 Teol KU 55 RímsKat UK 55 Divadelná VŠMU 55 Pravosl.PU 56 HumPrír PU 56 Fil UK 56 2006 VŠVU BL 57 2005 Hum UMB 57 Fil UKF 58 Umení TUKE 59 MuzUm AU 59 Fil UCM 59 VýtvarUm AU 60 Fil KU 62 Evanj UK 62 DramUm AU 62 Fil TVU 64 Teol.TVU 65 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 118
  • 119. SOC faculty group The average age of active professors Zdravotníctva PU Zdravotníctva KU 55 SocEkon UK 55 Pedag UK 55 Pedag PU 55 Práv UK 56 Manažment PU 56 VerSpr UPJŠ 57 Práv UMB 57 MasMed UCM 57 Ekonom UMB 57 Práv UPJŠ 58 Pedas ŽU 58 Ekonom TUKE 58 TV UK 59 Športu PU 59 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 59 2006PodnHosp. EU BA 59 2005 Pedag TVU 59 Pedag KU 59 ZdravSoc TVU 60 Obchod EU BA 60 Soc UKF 61 Pedag UKF 61 Manag UK 61 HospInfo EU BA 61 EkonomManSPU 61 Pedag UMB 62 NárHosp. EU BA 62 Eur.Št. SPU 62 Práv TVU 63 Polit UMB 63 SocEkon TUAD 64MedzVzťah EU BA 64 PodnMan EU BA 65 50 55 60 65 70 119
  • 120. Table 30: Overview of the results in the Students and Teachers area AGRONo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 100 100 87 83 100 93,9 2 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 46 56 93 100 100 79,0 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food 3 Slovak University of Agriculture 35 30 100 72 98 67,0 Resources Faculty of Biotechnology and Food 4 Slovak University of Agriculture 38 32 94 71 95 66,0 Sciences 5 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 36 34 74 78 100 64,8 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape 6 Slovak University of Agriculture 29 19 80 56 89 54,7 Engineering HUMNo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 100 100 70 71 86 85,5 Academy of Music and Dramatic 2 Faculty of Music and Dance 80 87 74 76 98 83,1 Arts 3 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 83 83 83 70 82 80,2 Academy of Music and Dramatic 4 Faculty of Theatre Arts 52 74 73 100 93 78,2 Arts 5 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 74 70 57 67 89 71,6 6 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 35 48 97 97 78 71,3 7 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 66 68 54 72 85 69,2 Academy of Music and Dramatic 8 Faculty of Film and Television 45 49 77 78 96 69,0 Arts 9 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 48 43 84 63 82 63,810 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 35 30 88 60 91 60,9 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of11 Comenius University 65 28 55 30 93 54,2 Cyril and Methodius12 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 12 9 100 53 91 53,0 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural13 University of Prešov 16 14 83 61 91 52,8 Sciences14 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 22 15 76 50 96 51,915 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 22 20 76 62 80 51,816 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 11 8 81 51 100 50,217 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 47 30 38 45 86 49,418 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 39 20 43 37 94 46,8 University of St. Cyril and19 Faculty of Arts 20 13 64 47 86 46,2 Methodius Constantine the Philosopher20 Faculty of Arts 14 9 62 44 88 43,4 University21 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 16 11 58 47 82 42,822 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 12 8 57 45 89 42,1 MEDNo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 100 93 99 90 96,4 2 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 82 72 87 86 100 85,4 3 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 66 66 100 100 93 85,1 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 76 60 79 78 98 78,3 NATNo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and 1 Comenius University 100 100 90 97 91 95,8 Informatics 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 76 78 94 100 96 89,0 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 70 65 100 90 91 83,4 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental 4 Technical university in Zvolen 58 46 81 77 87 69,9 Sciences University of St. Cyril and 5 Faculty of Natural Sciences 48 44 76 89 84 68,2 Methodius Constantine the Philosopher 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences 37 24 79 65 93 59,6 University 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 30 15 71 50 100 53,4 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 42 22 44 51 90 49,5 120
  • 121. Table 30: Overview of the results in the Students and Teachers area (continued) SOCNo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 87 100 100 100 92 95,7 2 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 100 91 96 79 93 92,0 3 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 84 86 79 89 100 87,7 4 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 87 87 61 87 87 81,8 5 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 71 77 75 93 89 81,1 6 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 68 67 76 86 95 78,4 7 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 69 68 70 86 90 76,3 8 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 60 63 70 92 93 75,7 Faculty of Political Sciences and 9 Matej Bel University 99 73 52 64 87 75,2 International Relations Faculty of Operation and Economics of10 University of Žilina 66 60 73 79 95 74,6 Transport and Communications11 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 67 60 79 85 72,812 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 49 54 75 95 89 72,413 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 52 53 75 88 92 71,814 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 82 53 76 56 86 70,715 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 64 52 73 70 93 70,516 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 75 51 69 59 95 69,717 Faculty of Education Comenius University 80 43 71 47 100 68,118 Faculty of Law Comenius University 46 42 73 81 98 67,919 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 69 51 63 65 90 67,520 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 66 41 64 54 96 64,1 Constantine the Philosopher21 Faculty of Education 76 43 56 49 90 62,7 University22 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 60 36 64 52 96 61,523 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 56 37 61 56 96 61,324 Faculty of Management Comenius University 36 31 63 76 90 59,4 Constantine the Philosopher25 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health 42 26 79 53 90 58,0 University Faculty of European Studies and Regional26 Slovak University of Agriculture 38 25 78 58 89 57,5 Development27 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 59 27 56 40 100 56,228 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 44 29 50 57 93 54,7 University of St. Cyril and29 Faculty of Mass Media Communication 47 27 40 49 96 52,1 Methodius Alexander Dubček University in30 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations 31 20 55 55 86 49,4 Trenčín31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 98 25 24 22 x 42,4 TECHNo. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 100 100 100 93 98,6 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and 2 Slovak Technical University 69 56 91 81 92 77,6 Informatics 3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 62 52 89 83 93 75,8 4 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 74 47 81 64 95 72,2 5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 69 50 77 72 92 72,0 6 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 77 46 80 61 95 71,7 7 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 56 38 90 68 100 70,6 Faculty of Environmental and 8 Technical university in Zvolen 54 40 84 75 100 70,6 Manufacturing Technology Faculty of Electrical Engineering and 9 Technical University of Košice 52 37 85 72 100 69,3 Informatics10 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 58 38 86 66 95 68,511 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 55 39 80 72 96 68,412 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 44 36 85 81 93 67,713 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 56 37 78 67 96 66,9 Alexander Dubček University in14 Faculty of Special Technologies 48 39 73 82 90 66,5 Trenčín Alexander Dubček University in15 Faculty of Industrial Technologies 55 41 68 74 83 64,3 Trenčín16 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 38 22 90 57 100 61,317 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 42 25 78 61 96 60,5 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process18 Technical University of Košice 31 20 80 65 100 59,4 Control and Geotechnology19 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 25 17 84 69 96 58,3 Faculty of Material Sciences and20 Slovak Technical University 45 24 68 54 96 57,7 Technology21 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 48 19 60 39 93 51,8 Alexander Dubček University in22 Faculty of Mechatronics 34 18 61 52 84 49,8 Trenčín 121
  • 122. The greatest interest was in faculties oriented6.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group towards the arts, where the TU Košice Faculty of Arts for example records 7 applicants for each place while the KUSV6 Admission proceedings: ratio of actual Faculty of Theology offers nearly 2 places for eachnumber of applications received to the planned applicant. The value for this faculty (0.65) is the lowest fornumber any faculty of a Slovak university. The greatest interest of all is in study at the TvU Faculty of Philosophy – 8.6There are marked differences between faculties in the SOC applicants for 1 place offered. In the SOC group faculties,and HUM groups, where there is high interest in study, the lowest ratio of 0.95 is at the KU Faculty of Education;and between the faculties in the TECH and NAT groups, the highest interest is in the SPU Faculty of Economics andwhere interest is lower. In the SOC and HUM groups there Management – 8.1. Faculties in the NAT group range fromare also increases in the high number of students in part- 2.7 for the UKF Faculty of Natural Sciences to 1.1 for thetime study. The situation is the same throughout Europe. UCM Faculty of Natural Sciences. There is a similarA welcome fact is that interest in the TECH group situation with regard to TECH where the highest ratio isincreased somewhat in 2005. Table 31 shows a number of 7.9 (in 2004, it was 5!) in the TU Košice Faculty of Mining,values by way of illustration. Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology and the lowest is 0.96 for the TUAD Faculty of Special With an exception for two faculties (the KU Faculty Technologies. In the case of the AGRO group, the highestof Theology – 0.6; the KU Faculty of Education – 0.9) for number of applicants is for study at the SPU Faculty ofall the remaining faculties the ratio of applications for Horticulture and Landscape Engineering (2.5) and thestudy received to the number of students the university lowest at TUZV Faculty of Forestry (1.7). For the MEDplanned to admit was greater than or equal to 1. This is group of faculties, the greatest number of prospectiveprobably a due to two main factors: (a) from various students applied for one place at the UK Jessenius Facultyreasons, students apply to more than one faculty; (b) of Medicine (5.5) and the fewest at UPJS Faculty ofdemand for study is still greater than supply. Medicine (2.2). Interest in study and also the likelihood of It appears that there is traditionally the greatestadmission to it can also be illustrated from the applicant’s pressure in medical and social science subjects, partiallypoint of view by a criterion based on the ratio of the the humanities (one half) with fewer students beingnumber of applications submitted to the number of offered interested particularly in technical and natural science(planned) places set by the faculty (university). Under subjects and certain faculties of the HUM and SOC groups.current legislation an applicant may submit applications toall faculties of Slovak universities at the same time.Applicants for full time study submitted on average only2.2 applications and for applicants for part time study itwas 1.2. Slovak university faculties accepted 77% ofapplicants for full time study and 69% of applicants forpart time study39. This information does not take intoconsideration, however, the number of applicants whowent on to take part in entrance tests (where facultiesorganise them).Table 31: The number of students applying forfull time study compared to the planned numberfor the academic year 2005/2006Faculty Number of full-time applications received in proportion to number planned for admissionFaculty of Arts TvU HUM 8,6Faculty of Natural Sciences UKF NAT 2,7Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology TU Košice TECH 7,9Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU AGRO 2,5Faculty of Economics and Management SPU SOC 8,1Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 5,539 Report on the situation in Slovak higher education for 2005, theSR Ministry of Education for the SR National Council (June 2006). 122
  • 123. Number of applications received in proportion to number planned for admission in acad. year 2005/2006 SV6 MED faculty group The number of applications to the planned number 8 7 6 5,5 4,8 5 2006 4 3,4 2006 3 2,2 2 1 0 JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ NAT faculty group The number of applications to the planned number 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,7 2,7 2,5 2,5 2005 2,5 2,1 2006 2 1,8 1,5 1,3 1,5 1,1 1 0,5 0 FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 123
  • 124. AGRO faculty group The number of applications to the planned number 4 3,5 3 2,5 2,5 2,1 2,0 1,8 2005 2 1,8 1,7 2006 1,5 1 0,5 0 Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 124
  • 125. TECH faculty group The number of applications to the planned number Ban TUKE 7,9 MatTechn STUBA 3,3 EnvirTech. TUZV 2,5 ŠpecInž ŽU 2,2 MechTron TUAD 2,1 ChemTechn. STUBA 2,1 Elektr ŽU 2,0 Riadenia ŽU 2,0 Mech SPU 1,9 VýrTech TUKE 1,8 Archit STUBA 1,8 2006 Stav ŽU 1,6 2005 Stroj ŽU 1,6 Letecká TUKE 1,5 Hutn TUKE 1,5 Stav STUBA 1,5 Elektr STUBA 1,2 Elektr TUKE 1,2 Stroj STUBA 1,1 Stav TUKE 1,0 PriemTech TUAD 1,0 Stroj TUKE 1,0 ŠpecTechn TUAD 1,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 125
  • 126. HUM faculty group The number of applications to the planned number Fil TVU 8,6 Umení TUKE 7,4 Fil UCM 6,4 VŠVU BL 5,5 VýtvarUm AU 5,4 Fil UKF 5,4 Divadelná VŠMU 4,3 DramUm AU 4,3 Fil UK 3,6 Pravosl.PU 3,6 Fil PU 3,1 2006 HumPrír PU 3,1 2005 FilmTel VŠMU 2,3 MuzUm AU 2,0 HudTan VŠMU 1,5 Teol.TVU 1,5 Fil KU 1,4 Greckokat.PU 1,4 Evanj UK 1,3 Filolo UMB 1,2 Hum UMB 1,1 RímsKat UK 1,1 Teol KU 0,6 0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 126
  • 127. SOC faculty group The number of applications to the planned number EkonomManSPU 8,1 Manag UK 5,9 Práv UMB 5,7 Práv TVU 5,7 Obchod EU BA 5,4 Ekonom TUKE 5,4 MasMed UCM 4,7 Práv UK 4,7 Eur.Št. SPU 4,3 Soc UKF 4,3 NárHosp. EU BA 3,9 ZdravSoc TVU 3,7 Pedas ŽU 3,5 PodnHosp. EU BA 3,5 SocEkon TUAD 3,4 PodnMan EU BA 3,4 Práv UPJŠ 3,3 2006 Polit UMB 3,3 2005 MedzVzťah EU BA 3,3 Pedag UK 3,1 Manažment PU 3,0 VerSpr UPJŠ 2,9 Ekonom UMB 2,8 Pedag TVU 2,7 Športu PU 2,6 Pedag UMB 2,5 Pedag UKF 2,3 SocEkon UK 2,1 HospInfo EU BA 2,0 Sredoeur.Št.UKF 1,6 Pedag PU 1,5 TV UK 1,4 Zdravotníctva PU 1,1 Pedag KU 0,9 Zdravotníctva KU 0,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 127
  • 128. SV7 Admission proceedings: number ofregistered students in proportion to thenumber of admittedThis ratio ranges mostly from 40% to 100% and may,inter alia, show to which faculties students submittedapplications to as an “insurance policy” and whichfaculties they really wanted to study at. Illustrative valueswould not provide a great deal of information and it ismore interesting to look at the individual groups offaculties.Table 32: The number of students registered for full time study compared to the number of offersissued for the academic year 2005/2006Faculty Number of registered students in proportion to the number of offers (%)Faculty of Theology TvU, RKCMBF UK HUM 100Faculty of Natural Sciences ZU NAT 67Faculty of Architecture STUBA TECH 79Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU, Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology TU Zvolen AGRO 77Faculty of Economics and Management SPU, Faculty of Law UK SOC 91Faculty of Pharmacy UK MED 86 being the other extreme (43% of the registered). The The criterion of the ratio of the number of AGRO group is led by the SPU Faculty of Horticulture andregistered applicants for study to the number of offers Landscape Engineering with 77%, with the lowest value atissued by the faculty reflects the real interest of the SPU Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources withprospective students in study. Apart from two faculties 61%. It may come as a surprise that even the faculties inthat had 100% success all faculties issued more offers the MED group did not register all the potential studentsthan they finally registered students. In the group of that they made offers to. The best in this was the UKfaculties oriented towards the humanities there were Faculty of Pharmacy with 86% and the lowest number wasdifferences up to 60%. While, as expected, the greatest at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (51% of offersnumber of offers led to registrations in the artistic faculties made). It is clear that this indicator can be influenced by(VŠVU 98%), the UCM Faculty of Philosophy did not whether a particular faculty has a “monopoly” in an arearegister as many as 60% of the students it offered places of study or whether there are more faculties with the sameto. It is similar in the case of the SOC faculty group, where or similar focus. The distance of the applicant’s home fromas many as 91% of those offered places registered at the the location of the university is also a factor.SPU Faculty of Economics and Management, but only 46%registered at the EU Faculty of Business Management. However, the fact needs to be taken intoEven the NAT faculty group did not deviate significantly consideration that many faculties, knowing thatfrom these trends. 67% of those offered places at the ŽU substantially fewer students will register than they are ableFaculty of Natural Sciences registered (a 15% drop to admit in the optimal case, issue more admissioncompared to 2004!), while the UPJŠ Faculty of Natural decisions than implied by their actual capacity. That meansSciences and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences registered that the low proportion of the registered compared to theonly 42% of those offered places, which, along with the issued admission decisions does not necessarily have toUCM Faculty of Philosophy (40%), are the lowest values mean that the faculty failed to reach the headcount itfrom the one hundred faculties assessed. planned to reach. The faculties of technical orientation (TECH) aredominated by the STU Faculty of Architecture with 79%with the STU Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology 128
  • 129. Number of registered students in proportion to the number of offers in the academic year 2005/2006 SV7 MED faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted 100% 90% 86% 80% 76% 67% 70% 60% 51% 2005 50% 2006 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Farm UK JessenLek UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ NAT faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted 100% 90% 80% 67% 65% 65% 70% 58% 60% 52% 48% 47% 2005 50% 42% 42% 2006 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBA 129
  • 130. AGRO faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted 100% 90% 77% 77% 80% 71% 69% 70% 61% 61% 60% 2006 50% 2006 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 130
  • 131. TECH faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted Archit STUBA 79% Letecká TUKE 74% Stav TUKE 73% ŠpecTechn TUAD 71% Stav STUBA 69% VýrTech TUKE 68% Mech SPU 68% Stroj TUKE 67% Elektr STUBA 65% PriemTech TUAD 64% ŠpecInž ŽU 63% 2006 Stroj STUBA 63% 2005 Hutn TUKE 63% EnvirTech. TUZV 62% Elektr ŽU 62% Riadenia ŽU 61%ChemTechn. STUBA 59% Elektr TUKE 59% MechTron TUAD 56% Stav ŽU 54% Ban TUKE 48% Stroj ŽU 46% MatTechn STUBA 43% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 131
  • 132. HUM faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted Teol.TVU 100% RímsKat UK 100% VŠVU BL 98% MuzUm AU 95% FilmTel VŠMU 95% Divadelná VŠMU 95% HudTan VŠMU 89% DramUm AU 89% Evanj UK 87% Umení TUKE 84% Fil UK 83% 2006 Pravosl.PU 82% 2005 Filolo UMB 82% VýtvarUm AU 80% Greckokat.PU 76% Fil PU 75% HumPrír PU 69% Teol KU 65% Fil UKF 64% Hum UMB 61% Fil TVU 51% Fil KU 51% Fil UCM 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 132
  • 133. SOC faculty group Ratio of the registered to the admitted Práv UK 91% EkonomManSPU 91% TV UK 90% Zdravotníctva PU 84% Športu PU 83% Pedag PU 83% SocEkon TUAD 77% MasMed UCM 76% Manag UK 75% SocEkon UK 72% Manažment PU 72% MedzVzťah EU BA 71% Soc UKF 70% Pedas ŽU 70% Pedag UK 70% Pedag KU 69% Práv UPJŠ 68% 2006 Polit UMB 68% 2005 Pedag UMB 68% Pedag UKF 68% Zdravotníctva KU 67% Eur.Št. SPU 65% ZdravSoc TVU 64% VerSpr UPJŠ 64% Ekonom TUKE 63% Obchod EU BA 60% HospInfo EU BA 60% Sredoeur.Št.UKF 58% Práv UMB 58% NárHosp. EU BA 55% Práv TVU 52% Pedag TVU 52% PodnMan EU BA 50% Ekonom UMB 49% PodnHosp. EU BA 46% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 133
  • 134. (18.0%), the VŠMU Faculty of Music and Dance (15.8%),SV8 Number of students with foreign the Academy of Fine Arts (14.0%), the UK Jesseniusstate citizenship divided by the total number Faculty of Medicine (12.4%), and the UK Faculty ofof full-time students Pharmacy (10.0%). All these faculties increased the numbers of their foreign students in 2005.The proportion of the number of students with anationality other than Slovak in the total number of full- It appears that most of the faculties of the Slovaktime students reflects the international character of the public higher education institutions probably lackuniversity faculty. It is widely known that few foreign marketing strategy in attracting foreign students. At thestudents study at Slovak universities. We even have same time, it is possible that their quality is not such thatfaculties (17 in total, two more than in 2004) that do not they could compete with related faculties at other higherreport having any foreign students. The number of education institutions in the neighbouring or more distantfaculties with more than 10 percent of foreign students foreign countries. Many of them do not offer teaching inamong full-time students is five (in 2004, there were four languages other than Slovak.such faculties): the University of Veterinary MedicineTable 33: Proportion of students with a different state citizenship Faculty Proportion of foreign students (%) Faculty of Music and Dance VSMU HUM 15,8 Faculty of Natural Sciences NAT 1,2 Faculty of Architecture STUBA TECH 2,0 University of Veterinary Medicine AGRO 18,0 Faculty of International Relations EU SOC 4,6 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK MED 12,4 Number of students with foreign state citizenship per total number of students in the year 2005 SV8 MED faculty group Proportion of foreign students 14% 12,4% 12% 10,0% 10% 7,6% 8% 2005 2006 6% 4,3% 4% 2% 0% JessenLek UK Farm UK Lek UK Lek UPJŠ 134
  • 135. NAT faculty group Proportion of foreign students 1,4% 1,2% 1,2% 1,0% 1,0% 0,8% 0,7% 2005 0,6% 0,6% 2006 0,6% 0,4% 0,4% 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% FMFI UK Ekolenv TUZ Prír UK Prír UPJŠ Prír UCM Prír UMB Infor.aInf.Tech. Prír UKF Prír ŽU STUBAAGRO faculty group Proportion of foreign students 20% 18,0% 18% 16% 14% 12% 2005 10% 2006 8% 6% 4% 1,7% 2% 1,1% 1,0% 0,6% 0,3% 0% Drev TUZV Les TUZV BiotPotr. SPU Záhrad SPU Agro SPU VeterLek. UVL 135
  • 136. TECH faculty group Proportion of foreign students Archit STUBA 2,0% Stroj STUBA 1,5% Elektr STUBA 1,5% ChemTechn. STUBA 0,9% Elektr TUKE 0,9% ŠpecTechn TUAD 0,7% Stav TUKE 0,7% Mech SPU 0,6% Elektr ŽU 0,6% MatTechn STUBA 0,4% Ban TUKE 0,3% 2006 Stav ŽU 0,3% 2005 Letecká TUKE 0,2% EnvirTech. TUZV 0,2% Stroj ŽU 0,2% Riadenia ŽU 0,1% Hutn TUKE 0,1% Stroj TUKE 0,1% MechTron TUAD 0,1% VýrTech TUKE 0,1% Stav STUBA 0,1% ŠpecInž ŽU 0,0% PriemTech TUAD 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0% 2,5% 3,0% 136
  • 137. HUM faculty group Proportion of foreign students HudTan VŠMU 15,8% VŠVU BL 14,0% Teol.TVU 8,0% Evanj UK 7,4% MuzUm AU 6,8% FilmTel VŠMU 3,9% VýtvarUm AU 3,2% Divadelná VŠMU 3,2% Fil UK 1,6% RímsKat UK 1,4% Umení TUKE 1,2% 2006 Fil UKF 1,1% 2005 Teol KU 1,1% Filolo UMB 0,9% Greckokat.PU 0,9% Fil PU 0,5% Fil UCM 0,3% Fil KU 0,2% Hum UMB 0,2% Pravosl.PU 0,0% HumPrír PU 0,0% Fil TVU 0,0% DramUm AU 0,0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 137
  • 138. SOC faculty group Proportion of foreign students MedzVzťah EU BA 4,6% Pedas ŽU 3,8% Manag UK 3,2% SocEkon UK 1,3% Soc UKF 1,3% Pedag UMB 1,3% Práv UK 1,2% EkonomManSPU 1,2% Ekonom UMB 0,9% Ekonom TUKE 0,8% Obchod EU BA 0,8% TV UK 0,8% HospInf o EU BA 0,8% Pedag UK 0,8% Eur.Št. SPU 0,6% PodnMan EU BA 0,6% ZdravSoc TVU 0,5% 2006 Polit UMB 0,4% 2005 MasMed UCM 0,3% Zdravotníctva KU 0,3% NárHosp. EU BA 0,3% SocEkon TUAD 0,2% Pedag UKF 0,1% Práv UPJŠ 0,1% Pedag KU 0,1% Zdravotníctva PU 0,0% VerSpr UPJŠ 0,0% Športu PU 0,0% Sredoeur.Št.UKF 0,0% Práv UMB 0,0% Práv TVU 0,0% PodnHosp. EU BA 0,0% Pedag TVU 0,0% Pedag PU 0,0% Manažment PU 0,0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 138
  • 139. Table 34: Comparison of the results in the Applications for Study group AGRONo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 70 92 100 87,5 Faculty of Horticulture and 2 Slovak University of Agriculture 100 100 6 68,6 Landscape Engineering Faculty of Wood Sciences and 3 Technical university in Zvolen 81 100 9 63,4 Technology Faculty of Biotechnology and Food 4 Slovak University of Agriculture 72 90 6 56,0 Sciences Faculty of Agrobiology and Food 5 Slovak University of Agriculture 79 79 3 53,7 Resources 6 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 67 79 2 49,3 HUMNo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 64 98 89 83,6 2 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 18 89 100 68,9 3 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 85 84 7 58,8 4 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 17 100 51 55,9 5 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 50 95 20 55,0 6 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 63 80 20 54,3 7 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 23 95 43 53,8 8 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 100 51 - 50,3 9 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 15 87 47 49,710 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 27 95 25 48,911 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 50 89 - 46,212 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 41 83 10 44,913 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 62 64 7 44,314 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 41 82 - 41,0 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty15 Comenius University 13 100 9 40,6 of Cyril and Methodius16 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 73 40 2 38,517 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 36 75 3 38,2 Faculty of the Humanities and18 University of Prešov 35 69 - 34,8 Natural Sciences19 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 13 82 6 33,720 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 16 76 6 32,421 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 13 61 1 25,222 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 16 51 2 22,9 MEDNo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 59 100 86,4 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 62 100 81 80,7 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 88 78 62 75,7 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 39 88 35 54,3 NATNo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 99 63 100 87,2 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 100 78 58 78,4 Faculty of Ecology and 3 Technical university in Zvolen 65 97 46 69,3 Environmental Sciences 4 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 90 100 8 65,8 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and 5 Comenius University 49 87 51 62,1 Informatics 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 92 63 28 60,8 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 54 70 29 50,9 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 38 72 - 36,7 139
  • 140. Table 34: Comparison of the results in the Applications for Study group (continued) SOCNo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average Faculty of Economics and 1 Slovak University of Agriculture 100 100 26 75,4 Management 2 Faculty of Management Comenius University 72 82 70 74,9 3 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 40 78 100 72,8 Faculty of Operation and Economics 4 University of Žilina 43 77 81 67,2 of Transport and Communications 5 Faculty of Law Comenius University 58 100 27 61,5 Faculty of Social Sciences and 6 Constantine the Philosopher University 52 77 28 52,4 Health 7 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 66 69 18 51,0 8 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 66 66 17 49,8 Faculty of Mass Media 9 University of St. Cyril and Methodius 58 84 7 49,7 Communication Faculty of European Studies and10 Slovak University of Agriculture 53 71 13 45,9 Regional Development Faculty of Social and Economic11 Comenius University 26 79 29 44,7 Sciences12 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 70 64 - 44,7 Faculty of Physical Education and13 Comenius University 17 99 17 44,3 Sports14 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 30 75 27 44,015 Faculty of Education Comenius University 38 77 16 43,7 Faculty of Social and Economic16 Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 42 85 3 43,2 Relations17 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 70 57 - 42,4 Faculty of Health Care and Social18 University of Trnava 45 70 11 42,0 Work Faculty of Political Sciences and19 Matej Bel University 41 75 9 41,5 International Relations20 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 41 75 2 39,221 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 48 60 7 38,322 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 42 55 13 36,423 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 18 91 - 36,324 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 35 54 19 35,925 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 24 66 16 35,526 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 36 70 - 35,327 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 28 75 3 35,228 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 13 92 - 35,229 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 43 51 - 31,130 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 33 57 - 30,131 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 12 76 1 29,6 TECHNo. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 23 100 100 74,2 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process 2 Technical University of Košice 100 61 14 58,3 Control and Geotechnology Faculty of Electrical Engineering and 3 Slovak Technical University 15 82 75 57,4 Informatics 4 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 14 80 76 56,5 Faculty of Chemical and Food 5 Slovak Technical University 26 75 44 48,2 Technology 6 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 24 86 31 46,9 7 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 13 92 34 46,5 8 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 12 90 35 45,5 9 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 25 78 30 44,7 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and10 Technical University of Košice 15 75 42 43,8 Informatics Faculty of Environmental and11 Technical university in Zvolen 31 78 8 39,3 Manufacturing Technology Faculty of Manufacturing12 Technical University of Košice 23 86 6 38,1 Technologies Faculty of Material Sciences and13 Slovak Technical University 42 54 18 38,1 Technology14 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 19 87 4 36,7 Faculty of Management and15 University of Žilina 25 77 7 36,3 Informatics16 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 28 80 - 36,017 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 19 80 7 35,218 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 27 71 6 34,719 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 12 85 7 34,520 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 21 68 13 34,021 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 12 81 - 31,122 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 20 58 8 28,9 140
  • 141. 6.2.3 University-Level Criteria group For the sake of interest, we can state that at present university graduates make up les than 1 percent ofSV9 Unemployed graduates (so-called unemployed graduates and the long-term trend is for thisproduction of the unemployed) number to fall. In practice this means that there areSince the number of university graduates unemployed for effectively no university graduates among the long termover 6 months was quite low in September, even lower unemployed because every one of them finds workthan last year (115 graduates versus 362 in 2004), we will eventually (even if it is not necessarily in the area thattake into consideration graduates unemployed longer than they studied, and in a position requiring higher education).3 months (as at September 2006, there were 1,957 suchgraduates). In the present situation in the labour market, Of course, regional differences are reflected in thiswhere virtually all university graduates find employment, indicator to a considerable extent, as it is certainly easierthe comparison of the demand for graduates will be better to find a job for a graduate in Bratislava than in, e.g.,served by an examination of the speed at which they find Prešov, Košice, or Zvolen.a job. As information is only available40 structured only byhigher education institutions – and considering the lownumbers, structuring by faculties would not even be useful– it is only presented in the report for illustration of thepicture of Slovak higher education institutions and is notincluded in the overall assessment. Proportion of graduates unemployed longer than 3 months (SV9, %) 16 15,1 14 12,112,1 11,411,5 12 10 8,5 8,5 8,8 7,9 2005 8 6,9 2006 6 5,0 4,1 3,5 4 3,0 3,0 3,1 1,9 2,2 2 0,3 0 TnUAD Trenčín UCM Trnava KU Ružomberok UMB Banská Bystrica UKF Nitra SPU Nitra UPJŠ Košice PU Prešov TVU Trnava STU Bratislava EU Bratislava TU Košice TU Zvolen VŠMU Bratislava UK Bratislava AU Banská Bystrica ŽU Žilina UVL Košice VŠVU Bratislava40 Source: Central office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family,September 2006, www.upsvar.sk 141
  • 142. SV 10 Students taking part in study abroad conducting part of their study abroad, the most active ones in this area include higher education institutions ofThe number of university students conducting part arts and the University of Veterinary Medicine, whichof their study abroad was again very low even if range high above the average. Among Slovakia’ssomewhat higher than last year (1,607 students versus institutions, average performance can be seen for the1,112 students last year). This case involves data obtained Comenius University and the University of Economics. Thefrom the National Agency of the Socrates programme lowest ranking higher education institutions include the(SAAIC) and studentships within programmes administered Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, the Technicalby the SAIA agency (scholarships based on bilateral University in Zvolen, and the Catholic University inintergovernmental agreements, scholarships of the Austria Ružomberok with very low values. By way of illustration,– Slovakia Action and the CEEPUS Programme). Data we calculate that if every graduate from the studentsstructured by faculties is unavailable and therefore it is not currently studying at university were to spend at least onepossible to include this criterion in the overall assessment. semester abroad, which is the recommendation that has emerged from the Bologna process, this would mean that This indicator presents also the measure of every year over 15,000 students of public universitiesinstitution’s internationalisation. Concerning students would need to be travelling as part of their study. Students travelling abroad for part of their study divided by the number of all full-time students (SV10, %) 7 5,8 6 5 4,2 3,9 3,8 4 2006 3 2,2 2,0 2 1,7 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 1 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,3 0 UCM Trnava TnUAD Trenčín KU Ružomberok UKF Nitra UPJŠ Košice UMB Banská Bystrica SPU Nitra PU Prešov EU Bratislava STU Bratislava TU Košice TVU Trnava TU Zvolen VŠMU Bratislava AU Banská Bystrica UK Bratislava ŽU Žilina UVL Košice VŠVU Bratislava 142
  • 143. An interesting indicator monitoring the measure of highereducation institution’s internationalisation may be the Foreign students in proportion to the number of all full-timenumber of students coming to Slovak higher students of Slovak nationality (%)education institutions from abroad to the number ofstudents of Slovak nationality. These include not onlystudents completing their entire studies in Slovakia (SV8) foreign students - part of the study foreign students - complete studybut also those who conduct part of their studies at some foreign students in total (2005)of Slovak higher education institutions with education soreceived being recognised by the student’s home 4,5 AU Banská Bystricainstitution upon return.41 The graph on the right provides 1,00 3,5such overview. The higher education institutions – asopposed to the remaining graphs – are sorted 1,5 EU Bratislava 0,8alphabetically (vertical lines representing the average 0,74values of the particular monitored group). 0,4 KU Ružomberok 0,3 As can be seen, higher education institutions of 0,17arts (the Academy of Music and Performing Arts and the 0,4Academy of Fine Arts) and the University of Veterinary PU Prešov 0,2Medicine are considerably open to internationalisation also 0,21from this point of view. It could be thus concluded that 1,2they actively contribute to the reputation abroad, that they SPU Nitra 0,9 0,31adapted their teaching so that it can include also studentsother than Slovak, and that their “brand” is more attractive 1,4as a result than is the case with other public higher STU Bratislava 0,9 0,49education institutions in Slovakia. It could be objected thatthe high ranking institutions involve relatively small higher 0,9 TU Košiceeducation institutions with homogeneous subjects. 0,4 0,50However, this argument cannot be sustained, as theindicator shows average values for the Comenius 1,3 TU Zvolen 0,8University, that is – concerning the number of students 0,47and number of subjects – the largest higher educationinstitution in Slovakia. Other higher education institutions TUAD Trenčín 0,2 0,2show very poor results, which indicates that the institution 0,03lacks openness to foreign environments. Making 0,8themselves more attractive for foreign nationals is a very TVU Trnava 0,4important challenge for the future for the higher education 0,37institutions as the Slovak population decreases year by 0,3year and it is very probable that the number of students UCM Trnava 0,3will be decreasing in a long term. Only openness to the 0,04foreign countries may avert, in the future, the threat of 3,9institutions’ closing due to lack of students and lack of UK Bratislava 3,2 0,67their interest (indications of this process being alreadyapparent). 1,1 UKF Nitra 0,7 0,36 It is very positive that certain higher educationinstitutions work actively on their openness contributing 1,2 UMB Banská Bystrica 0,6thus to the fulfilment of the Bologna process objectives 0,55and enabling the students to expand their knowledge withcontacts with foreign countries and their culture. UPJŠ Košice 1,9 1,7 0,15 19,8 UVL Košice 18,0 1,82 10,4 VŠMU Bratislava 8,2 2,18 21,5 VŠVU Bratislava 14,0 7,54 1,5 ŽU Žilina 1,0 0,46 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2441 Data on foreign students in Slovakia come from the StatisticalYear-book issued by the Institute of Information and Prognoses inEducation (www.uips.sk), from the National Agency of the Socratesprogramme (www.saaic.sk), from SAIA, n. o. (information for theAustria – Slovakia Action and the CEEPUS Programme) and fromthe House of Foreign Relations of the Ministry of Education of theSlovak Republic (data on scholars coming on the basis ofintergovernmental bilateral agreements). 143
  • 144. 6.3 FinancingF1 Costs of the higher education institution’s Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities permain activities per student student (F1, SKK 000)Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities, 300that is, per-student costs of education and research, 246represent the total amount of funding that the university 250gained from public sources in 2005 for its educational and 200scientific activities, for operation, for development, and 178 167also for students’ social security (catering, accommodation 2005 150 126and grants for students) divided by the number of 111 104 97 89 2006students of the given higher education institution. The 100 73 66 65proportion spent per one student indicates the level of 50 43 43 41 39 39 32 30 28equipment and is related to the quality of the environmentin which students will study. The larger the volume 0 TnUAD Trenčín UCM Trnava KU Ružomberok UPJŠ Košice SPU Nitra UKF Nitra UMB Banská Bystrica PU Prešov STU Bratislava TU Zvolen TU Košice EU Bratislava TVU Trnava AU Banská Bystrica VŠMU Bratislava UK Bratislava ŽU Žilinaallocated per student, the higher the number of points UVL Košice VŠVU Bratislavawon by the faculty/higher education institution. At thesame time, however, this parameter also reflects therequirements for study and also the differences in thecriteria that the Ministry of Education applies in allocatingfunding to individual universities. Although the amount ofthe subsidy cannot be directly influenced by the institution,it indicates the quality of the study environment. Incomparison with the last year, a change occurredconsisting in the fact that the running costs are not taken The proportion of the revenues of the university’s businessinto consideration (on which relevant data is unavailable) activities to the overall costs of its main activities (F2, %)but rather the total costs per student are used. 3,5F2 Success of the university’s business 3,0activities 2,5 2,3It is good that universities are using a larger proportion of 2,0 1,6 1,6 1,5their own resources to support and improve their main 1,5 2005activities, i.e., research and education. Universities gain 1,2 2006the largest part of their non-subsidy funding from their 1,0 0,7 0,6 0,5main activities (e.g., lifelong learning, contract research, 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,2grant funds, etc.). In addition to this they also do some 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0business. The stated parameter shows that universities are 0,0 UCM Trnava TnUAD Trenčín KU Ružomberok UMB Banská Bystrica SPU Nitra UPJŠ Košice UKF Nitra PU Prešov STU Bratislava EU Bratislava TU Zvolen TU Košice TVU Trnava ŽU Žilina VŠMU Bratislava AU Banská Bystrica UK Bratislava UVL Košice VŠVU Bratislavano threat to the business sector but also that at present -0,5they are not capable of earning enough through theseactivities. No major changes occurred in comparison to thelast year. The University of Veterinary Medicine movedfrom red figures to a moderate profit, while the ŽilinaUniversity made a significant improvement. On thecontrary, for STU, this ratio considerably dropped.F3 The proportion of grant funding to thecosts of main activities The proportion of grant funding to the costs of main activities (F3, %)In other countries the proportion of funds intended for thesupport of research and development activities that the 16,0university gains in open competition is very often given as 14,0one of the key criteria determining the quality of the 14,0 12,9university. This number also reflects the level of research 12,0 10,3carried out in the faculty or university. It also provides 10,0 9,2information about the quality of the employees of the 7,4 7,1 2005 8,0 6,9 6,8institution because the better the teachers and research 2006 5,4and artistic employees of the faculty, the more grants they 6,0will be able to obtain (obviously, compared only within the 4,0 3,3 2,9 2,6 2,6given groups of faculties) and therefore the higher the 2,0 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,6 0,9 0,7level of quality they will be able to offer to their students. 0,0 TnUAD Trenčín UCM Trnava KU Ružomberok SPU Nitra UPJŠ Košice UKF Nitra UMB Banská Bystrica PU Prešov STU Bratislava TU Košice TU Zvolen TVU Trnava EU Bratislava ŽU Žilina UK Bratislava VŠMU Bratislava AU Banská Bystrica UVL Košice VŠVU BratislavaSlovak universities would not be able to competealongside the good world universities even in thiscompetition. The best universities (e.g., Oxford University)are able to get half of their budget from such sources andaverage ones (e.g., Oregon University) obtain around 25%of their budget in contests for funds for research anddevelopment financing. 144
  • 145. 7 Comparison of university teachers’ salariesFor comparison and to complete the picture, we present a It can be noticed that there is a salarytable taken from the Ministry of Education’s report on differentiation not only among individual institutions buthigher education institutions showing the salaries of also even within institutions. At certain institutions, aprofessors, associate professors, fellows and other staff at professor’s salary is on average a threefold of a fellow’sindividual higher education institutions. In table 35, data salary, elsewhere it is not higher even by 50%. At theare highlighted for which the value is higher than the Comenius University in Bratislava, a professor’s salary doesaverage. not reach the nationwide average, although in activities that are primarily the responsibility of the professors – i.e., research, PhD training or grant acquisition – its faculties ranked high within their groups. Considering also the generally higher level of salaries in Bratislava, this finding will not please this institution’s professors42.Table 35: Comparison of university teachers’average salaries in 2005 Average Average Average salary Average Average salary University salary of salary of of associate salary of of lecturers teachers professors professors fellows STU Bratislava 28 857 Sk 42 380 Sk 33 252 Sk 23 770 Sk 17 181 Sk UVL Košice 28 014 Sk 38 286 Sk 30 845 Sk 23 354 Sk n.a. UKF Nitra 26 208 Sk 34 878 Sk 32 064 Sk 25 240 Sk 19 720 Sk SPU Nitra 26 016 Sk 35 353 Sk 30 595 Sk 22 361 Sk 15 417 Sk TU Košice 25 865 Sk 42 406 Sk 30 493 Sk 21 103 Sk 13 917 Sk ŽU Žilina 25 844 Sk 39 392 Sk 30 612 Sk 21 855 Sk 17 116 Sk TvU Trnava 25 203 Sk 32 596 Sk 28 096 Sk 22 512 Sk 16 400 Sk UK Bratislava 25 157 Sk 34 439 Sk 29 759 Sk 22 208 Sk 16 218 Sk VŠVU Bratislava 25 114 Sk 33 958 Sk 28 242 Sk 24 679 Sk 17 777 Sk UPJŠ Košice 24 151 Sk 33 244 Sk 27 802 Sk 21 901 Sk 17 020 Sk PU Prešov 24 073 Sk 33 405 Sk 28 224 Sk 22 069 Sk 17 241 Sk KU Ružomberok 23 781 Sk 34 088 Sk 27 609 Sk 20 808 Sk 17 745 Sk AU B.Bystrica 23 081 Sk 28 273 Sk 25 528 Sk 21 535 Sk 15 069 Sk VŠMU Bratislava 23 037 Sk 28 065 Sk 24 607 Sk 20 231 Sk n.a. TUAD Trenčín 23 011 Sk 31 086 Sk 27 032 Sk 20 277 Sk 16 976 Sk TU Zvolen 22 749 Sk 30 031 Sk 25 626 Sk 19 545 Sk 13 462 Sk EU Bratislava 21 887 Sk 31 174 Sk 26 483 Sk 19 609 Sk 15 312 Sk UCM Trnava 21 398 Sk 28 981 Sk 24 617 Sk 20 048 Sk 16 283 Sk UMB B.Bystrica 20 864 Sk 27 247 Sk 24 500 Sk 19 125 Sk 18 580 Sk UJS Komárno 18 654 Sk 40 258 Sk 19 417 Sk 16 889 Sk 12 662 Sk Average 24 962 Sk 35 243 Sk 29 475 Sk 21 787 Sk 17 063 Sk 42 The staff remuneration system is fully within the competence of individual higher education institutions. 145
  • 146. 8 Aggregate assessment of faculties within groups For the purposes of comparison and monitoring of possible development trends, ARRA publishes here two tables ranking the faculties within Frascati groups. Table 36 uses exactly the same criteria as in the last year’s report. The last two columns (to the very right) show the last year’s score and ranking of each faculty. It should be noted that the numbers of faculties in individual groups slightly differ compared to the last year. As ARRA does not assess shorter existing faculties as opposed to the last year43, it is possible that a faculty ranked 9th last year even if there are only 8 faculties in the particular group this year. Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year) AGRO teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 2005 University of Veterinary1 University of Veterinary Medicine Medicine 94 88 85 61 81 81,6 83,8 1 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Slovak University of2 66 56 76 49 65 62,4 41,3 6 Sciences Agriculture Technical university in3 Faculty of Forestry Zvolen 79 49 54 61 42 57,0 65,5 2 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Slovak University of4 67 54 12 59 77 53,8 61,6 3 Resources Agriculture Faculty of Horticulture and Slovak University of5 55 69 4 83 43 50,6 55,5 5 Landscape Engineering Agriculture Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technical university in6 65 63 8 65 36 47,5 57,1 4 Technology Zvolen HUM teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 2005 Faculty of the Humanities and1 University of Prešov 53 35 72 14 64 47,6 53,0 3 Natural Sciences2 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 61 45 58 43 17 44,9 64,7 1 Academy of Music and3 Faculty of Music and Dance Dramatic Arts 83 69 - 57 8 43,3 42,6 11 Academy of Music and4 Faculty of Film and Television Dramatic Arts 69 49 - 69 26 42,7 47,9 75 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 52 38 47 35 41 42,6 53,8 26 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 71 56 - 67 19 42,5 44,7 9 Academy of Fine Arts and7 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Design 72 84 - 29 14 39,6 50,1 5 Academy of Music and8 Faculty of Theatre Arts Dramatic Arts 78 55 - 42 22 39,3 49,0 69 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 52 50 22 38 23 37,3 51,0 4 Technical University of10 Faculty of Arts Košice 49 59 - - 75 36,6 28,0 1911 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 64 50 24 42 3 36,5 42,3 1212 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 53 41 - 67 15 35,2 43,4 1013 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 85 54 - - 34 34,6 47,1 8 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty14 Comenius University 54 41 2 45 2 28,8 42,0 13 of Cyril and Methodius15 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 42 25 10 28 30 27,1 35,2 1516 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 80 46 - - 0 25,3 32,4 17 Constantine the17 Faculty of Arts Philosopher University 43 44 0 26 10 24,8 35,3 1418 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 69 54 - - 0 24,7 34,6 1619 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 43 23 5 17 23 22,2 26,5 2220 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 50 32 - 6 16 21,0 27,9 20 University of St. Cyril and21 Faculty of Arts Methodius 46 39 5 - 10 20,1 27,4 2122 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 47 34 - - 4 16,9 20,5 23 MED teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 20051 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 85 86 40 100 82 78,8 72,3 22 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 85 81 100 46 81 78,5 79,3 13 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 96 76 41 77 28 63,6 63,0 44 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik 78 54 48 67 24 54,4 70,7 3 University 43 See Chapter 3.2, Table 3. 146
  • 147. Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year; continued) NAT teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 2005 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and1 Comenius University 96 62 97 81 77 82,6 82,3 1 Informatics2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 83 87 53 94 88 81,2 72,0 2 Pavol Jozef Šafárik3 Faculty of Natural Sciences University 89 61 62 60 56 65,4 68,2 3 Constantine the4 Faculty of Natural Sciences Philosopher University 60 78 11 73 28 50,1 44,9 6 Faculty of Ecology and Technical university in5 70 69 9 66 17 46,2 47,0 4 Environmental Sciences Zvolen6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 53 51 13 41 13 34,1 37,1 77 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 50 66 1 17 6 27,8 35,4 8 University of St. Cyril and8 Faculty of Natural Sciences Methodius 68 37 8 - 7 23,9 25,8 9 SOC teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 2005 Faculty of Health Care and Social1 University of Trnava 96 42 100 79 7 64,7 70,2 1 Work2 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 71 73 11 60 30 48,8 40,4 8 Faculty of Physical Education and3 Comenius University 92 44 12 40 49 47,5 51,9 2 Sports Technical University of4 Faculty of Economics Košice 70 51 10 14 85 46,0 47,5 5 Faculty of Economics and Slovak University of5 76 75 3 32 35 44,2 46,6 6 Management Agriculture Faculty of Operation and Economics6 University of Žilina 75 67 - 35 22 39,7 39,9 10 of Transport and Communications7 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 76 30 27 14 48 39,0 37,6 128 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 72 50 12 28 27 37,8 35,6 16 Faculty of European Studies and Slovak University of9 57 46 14 29 42 37,7 34,1 18 Regional Development Agriculture10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 82 42 - 25 38 37,4 34,4 1711 Faculty of Education Comenius University 68 44 2 29 42 37,0 40,1 9 Faculty of Social and Economic12 Comenius University 88 45 8 9 29 35,6 40,6 7 Sciences13 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 81 38 10 20 25 34,8 36,7 1414 Faculty of Management Comenius University 59 75 3 29 6 34,4 32,7 2115 Faculty of Law Comenius University 68 62 1 19 19 33,7 36,8 1316 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 56 36 - 26 47 33,0 39,0 11 Faculty of Social Sciences and Constantine the17 58 52 5 11 38 32,9 27,3 30 Health Philosopher University18 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 61 36 3 20 43 32,6 32,9 19 Constantine the19 Faculty of Education Philosopher University 63 35 - 25 36 31,8 35,7 1520 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 36 4 16 18 29,5 32,8 2021 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 72 44 7 20 4 29,4 30,2 2622 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 67 35 10 20 13 29,1 31,8 2523 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 71 31 8 23 11 28,9 32,2 23 Faculty of Political Sciences and24 Matej Bel University 75 42 5 15 3 28,0 30,1 27 International Relations Pavol Jozef Šafárik25 Faculty of Law University 78 39 4 9 9 27,9 32,5 22 Faculty of Social and Economic Alexander Dubček26 49 43 0 - 44 27,3 26,1 32 Relations University in Trenčín Pavol Jozef Šafárik27 Faculty of Public Administration University 61 35 5 - 33 27,1 30,0 2828 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 64 45 - 10 3 24,4 28,6 2929 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 55 30 4 13 17 23,8 31,9 24 Faculty of Mass Media University of St. Cyril and30 52 50 - - 10 22,3 25,0 33 Communication Methodius31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 42 35 1 - 3 16,3 22,9 34 147
  • 148. Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year; continued) TECH teachers and applications publications PhD Average Position Faculty University grants AVERAGE students for study and citations studies 2005 2005 Faculty of Chemical and Food1 Slovak Technical University 99 48 100 82 84 82,5 80,4 1 Technology Faculty of Electrical Engineering and2 Slovak Technical University 78 57 38 51 82 61,1 58,6 2 Informatics Technical University of3 Faculty of Metallurgy Košice 76 35 19 69 43 48,4 51,7 54 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 72 74 1 48 40 47,1 45,6 115 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 29 4 71 59 46,9 49,8 86 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 72 57 19 44 41 46,6 45,5 12 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Technical University of7 59 58 15 67 31 46,2 53,4 4 Control and Geotechnology Košice Alexander Dubček8 Faculty of Industrial Technologies University in Trenčín 64 31 27 46 47 43,0 48,4 99 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 68 37 20 44 37 41,3 47,2 10 Faculty of Environmental and Technical university in10 71 39 2 49 38 39,9 54,5 3 Manufacturing Technology Zvolen Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Technical University of11 69 44 12 44 30 39,8 49,9 7 Informatics Košice Technical University of12 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Košice 60 35 5 53 41 38,8 50,4 6 Technical University of13 Faculty of Civil Engineering Košice 72 47 12 36 26 38,3 44,5 13 Faculty of Manufacturing Technical University of14 61 38 3 30 50 36,6 38,2 16 Technologies Košice15 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 68 45 4 39 19 35,2 39,3 15 Slovak University of16 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Agriculture 68 47 2 36 16 33,8 41,1 1417 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 67 34 0 41 22 32,9 34,8 18 Faculty of Management and18 University of Žilina 52 36 6 46 21 32,2 n.a. n.a. Informatics Alexander Dubček19 Faculty of Special Technologies University in Trenčín 67 45 - 19 28 31,8 33,4 19 Faculty of Material Sciences and20 Slovak Technical University 58 38 6 30 20 30,4 33,1 20 Technology21 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 58 36 - 23 12 25,9 35,7 17 Alexander Dubček22 Faculty of Mechatronics University in Trenčín 50 35 4 - 9 19,5 28,3 21 148
  • 149. Table 37 then shows the ranking of faculties using all criteria analysed in the present report. As this is a methodological change, it can explain part of the changes in faculties’ ranking. Table 37: Assessment of faculties within Frascati groups (all criteria) AGRO teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary 94 88 85 61 81 81,6 Medicine 2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 66 56 76 49 65 62,4 3 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 79 49 54 61 42 57,0 4 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 67 54 12 59 77 53,8 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Slovak University of Agriculture 5 55 69 4 83 43 50,6 Engineering 6 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 65 63 8 65 36 47,5 HUM teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations1 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 53 35 72 14 64 47,62 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 61 45 58 43 17 44,93 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and 83 69 - 57 8 43,3 Dramatic Arts4 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and 69 49 - 69 26 42,7 Dramatic Arts5 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 52 38 47 35 41 42,66 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 71 56 - 67 19 42,57 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and 72 84 - 29 14 39,6 Design8 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and 78 55 - 42 22 39,3 Dramatic Arts9 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 52 50 22 38 23 37,310 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 49 59 - - 75 36,611 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 64 50 24 42 3 36,512 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 53 41 - 67 15 35,213 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 85 54 - - 34 34,6 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril Comenius University14 54 41 2 45 2 28,8 and Methodius15 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 42 25 10 28 30 27,116 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 80 46 - - 0 25,317 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher 43 44 0 26 10 24,8 University18 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 69 54 - - 0 24,719 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 43 23 5 17 23 22,220 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 50 32 - 6 16 21,021 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and 46 39 5 - 10 20,1 Methodius22 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 47 34 - - 4 16,9 MED teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 85 86 40 100 82 78,82 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 85 81 100 46 81 78,53 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 96 76 41 77 28 63,64 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 54 48 67 24 54,4 NAT teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Comenius University1 96 62 97 81 77 82,6 Informatics2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 83 87 53 94 88 81,23 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 89 61 62 60 56 65,44 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher 60 78 11 73 28 50,1 University5 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 70 69 9 66 17 46,26 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 53 51 13 41 13 34,17 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 50 66 1 17 6 27,88 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and 68 37 8 - 7 23,9 Methodius 149
  • 150. Table 37: Assessment of faculties within Frascati groups (all criteria; continued) SOC teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 96 42 100 79 7 64,72 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 71 73 11 60 30 48,83 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 92 44 12 40 49 47,54 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 70 51 10 14 85 46,05 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 76 75 3 32 35 44,2 Faculty of Operation and Economics of University of Žilina6 75 67 - 35 22 39,7 Transport and Communications7 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 76 30 27 14 48 39,08 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 72 50 12 28 27 37,8 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Slovak University of Agriculture9 57 46 14 29 42 37,7 Development10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 82 42 - 25 38 37,411 Faculty of Education Comenius University 68 44 2 29 42 37,012 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 88 45 8 9 29 35,613 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 81 38 10 20 25 34,814 Faculty of Management Comenius University 59 75 3 29 6 34,415 Faculty of Law Comenius University 68 62 1 19 19 33,716 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 56 36 - 26 47 33,017 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher 58 52 5 11 38 32,9 University18 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 61 36 3 20 43 32,619 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher 63 35 - 25 36 31,8 University20 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 36 4 16 18 29,521 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 72 44 7 20 4 29,422 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 67 35 10 20 13 29,123 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 71 31 8 23 11 28,9 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Matej Bel University24 75 42 5 15 3 28,0 Relations25 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 39 4 9 9 27,926 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in 49 43 0 - 44 27,3 Trenčín27 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 61 35 5 - 33 27,128 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 64 45 - 10 3 24,429 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 55 30 4 13 17 23,830 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and 52 50 - - 10 22,3 Methodius31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 42 35 1 - 3 16,3 TECH teachers and applications publications Faculty University PhD studies grants AVERAGE students for study and citations1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 99 48 100 82 84 82,5 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and2 Slovak Technical University 78 57 38 51 82 61,1 Informatics3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 76 35 19 69 43 48,44 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 72 74 1 48 40 47,15 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 29 4 71 59 46,96 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 72 57 19 44 41 46,6 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and7 Technical University of Košice 59 58 15 67 31 46,2 Geotechnology Alexander Dubček University in8 Faculty of Industrial Technologies 64 31 27 46 47 43,0 Trenčín9 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 68 37 20 44 37 41,3 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing10 Technical university in Zvolen 71 39 2 49 38 39,9 Technology Faculty of Electrical Engineering and11 Technical University of Košice 69 44 12 44 30 39,8 Informatics12 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 60 35 5 53 41 38,813 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 72 47 12 36 26 38,314 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 61 38 3 30 50 36,615 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 68 45 4 39 19 35,216 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 68 47 2 36 16 33,817 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 67 34 0 41 22 32,918 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 52 36 6 46 21 32,2 Alexander Dubček University in19 Faculty of Special Technologies 67 45 - 19 28 31,8 Trenčín20 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 58 38 6 30 20 30,421 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 58 36 - 23 12 25,9 Alexander Dubček University in22 Faculty of Mechatronics 50 35 4 - 9 19,5 Trenčín 150
  • 151. 9 Aggregate assessment of universities the performance of its two faculties that fall into this groupAs mentioned above, ARRA abandoned the assessment of (the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informaticsuniversities as a whole. It is more accurate to measure the and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences). The results areperformance of universities in particular areas according to shown in Table 38.the performance achieved by the faculties that operate inthe given area. For example, the performance of theComenius University in the area of NAT is determined byTable 38: Assessment of universities within Frascati groups (comparison) teachers and applications publications AGRO students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 20051 1 University of Veterinary Medicine 94 90 88 100 85 100 61 63 81 65 81,6 83,42 2 Slovak University of Agriculture 63 67 59 79 31 16 64 59 62 45 55,6 53,43 3 Technical university in Zvolen 72 79 56 89 31 22 63 68 39 58 52,3 63,2 teachers and applications publications HUM students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 Academy of Music and Dramatic1 1 77 68 58 99 0 0 56 58 19 16 41,7 48,2 Arts2 2 University of Trnava 62 67 53 79 11 14 53 66 21 33 39,9 51,63 3 Academy of Fine Arts and Design 72 62 84 95 0 0 29 43 14 61 39,6 52,34 4 Comenius University 60 61 45 88 28 39 43 24 7 26 36,7 47,55 5 Technical University of Košice 49 45 59 93 0 0 0 0 75 0 36,6 27,66 6 University of Prešov 52 53 37 81 30 32 31 33 34 31 36,6 46,27 7 Academy of Arts 78 69 51 91 0 0 0 0 11 27 28,2 37,4 Constantine the Philosopher8 8 43 44 44 70 0 2 26 43 10 35 24,8 38,9 University9 9 Catholic University 43 53 23 61 5 2 17 30 23 9 22,2 30,910 10 Matej Bel University 44 43 29 63 5 4 14 15 17 19 22,0 28,8 University of St. Cyril and11 11 46 52 39 61 5 3 0 0 10 22 20,1 27,7 Methodius teachers and applications publications MED students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 20051 1 Comenius University 89 75 81 86 60 57 74 74 64 64 73,6 71,12 2 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 66 54 88 48 44 67 90 24 52 54,4 67,7 teachers and applications publications NAT students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 20051 1 Comenius University 90 87 75 60 75 72 87 86 83 83 81,9 77,62 2 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 89 81 61 50 62 80 60 53 56 71 65,4 67,2 Constantine the Philosopher3 3 60 61 78 62 11 9 73 72 28 26 50,1 46,3 University4 4 Technical university in Zvolen 70 65 69 80 9 9 66 58 17 30 46,2 48,55 5 Matej Bel University 53 59 51 84 13 9 41 44 13 9 34,1 40,96 6 University of Žilina 50 66 66 100 1 1 17 12 6 6 27,8 37,1 University of St. Cyril and7 7 68 72 37 59 8 4 0 0 7 8 23,9 28,5 Methodius teachers and applications publications SOC students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 20051 1 University of Trnava 84 79 38 68 42 35 39 49 31 24 47,0 51,22 2 Technical University of Košice 70 55 51 100 10 9 14 33 85 48 46,0 49,03 3 Slovak University of Agriculture 67 69 61 82 8 2 31 34 38 27 40,9 43,04 4 University of Žilina 75 54 67 72 0 1 35 36 22 64 39,7 45,25 5 Comenius University 75 64 54 82 5 2 25 31 29 29 37,6 41,56 6 University of Economics 72 60 44 67 9 6 28 29 21 21 34,8 36,6 Constantine the Philosopher7 7 60 59 44 66 2 0 18 12 37 13 32,4 30,0 University8 8 Matej Bel University 68 61 42 70 4 1 16 16 13 7 28,6 31,19 9 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 58 37 70 5 2 4 1 21 23 27,5 30,7 Alexander Dubček University in10 10 49 53 43 70 0 0 0 0 44 15 27,3 27,6 Trenčín11 11 University of Prešov 49 56 36 82 0 0 13 18 25 22 24,6 35,512 12 Catholic University 55 62 30 72 4 1 13 15 17 22 23,8 34,4 University of St. Cyril and13 13 52 49 50 78 0 0 0 0 10 3 22,3 25,9 Methodius 151
  • 152. teachers and applications publications TECH students for study and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 20051 1 Slovak Technical University 74 71 52 66 31 22 50 56 51 44 51,5 51,92 2 Technical University of Košice 66 61 43 84 11 5 50 50 37 38 41,3 47,53 3 Technical university in Zvolen 71 70 39 71 2 1 49 51 38 84 39,9 55,54 4 University of Žilina 63 63 36 59 3 1 44 50 27 27 34,6 40,15 5 Slovak University of Agriculture 68 68 47 76 2 1 36 38 16 28 33,8 42,0 Alexander Dubček University in6 6 60 59 37 66 10 6 22 36 28 34 31,4 40,1 TrenčínIn other words, for example, Comenius University occupies This caused a change in ranking within the AGROthe fourth place among universities with humanities- group, the decrease of VŠMU’s position from 1st to 3rd inoriented faculties for the performance of its humanities- the HUM group and of Technical University in Zvolenoriented faculties, the fifth place among thirteen similarly in the TECH group.universities in the SOC area, and two first places – in MEDamong two universities and in NAT among eight UKF improved within the NAT group thanks to theuniversities. increased interest in study at the expense of UMB or Žilina University, where the interest – compared to other Shifts in the ranking are caused particularly by the institutions within the group – dropped in comparison tolast group of criteria, i.e., the grants, within which also the last year. What is significant again is the last positionforeign grants and state programme grants are assessed. of UCM in all groups of faculties, in which it is represented (last year, it took two last places and one last but one place.10 Conclusion university faculties, almost in all parameters, improvedThere can be no doubt that as in the past, universities are their performance during the year. This has beenin the present the heart and the driving force for the undoubtedly contributed to by the improving economicdevelopment of the knowledge based society. They are situation of the country, in certain cases also by theirreplaceable for the prosperity and positive development ongoing international evaluation of Slovak higherof the fast changing world. There are however, two education institutions in cooperation with the Europeanrequirements for them to carry out their tasks: that their University Association (EUA). The ARRA study is trying tofree spirit is preserved and that the education and reflect and help monitor this improving development. Weresearch that they provide and carry out have a high level can only hope now that the situation will continue toof quality. This study may also encourage universities and improve. It would be very daring to believe that twotheir faculties to think about their performance and to try assessments are sufficient to make substantial conclusionsto find ways to improve. on the development trends. However, it is undoubted that if such assessment continues to be conducted for a longer Once again we are happy to be able to conclude period of time, it will be easier to see as to which directionthat in comparison to 2004, nearly all Slovak public the Slovak higher education is taking. 152
  • 153. 11 About the authors and the report vi. Prof. RNDr. Juraj Hromkovič, DrSc., professor ofThe authors of the report are the members and fellow informatics at the Aachen Technical University inworkers of the Academic Ranking and Rating Agency. The the Federal Republic of Germanydata was prepared and processed by doc. Neva Pišútová vii. Prof. ThDr. Jozef Jarab, PhD., professor ofand Prof. Vladimír Kellö. The authors of the text part are theology at the UK Faculty of Roman CatholicProf. Ferdinand Devínsky, Prof. Ján Pišút, Juraj Barta, TheologyRenáta Králiková and Michal Fedák. The preparation of the viii. doc. JUDr. Peter Kresák, CSc., associate professorreport was contributed to, among others, by Prof. Ivan at the UK Faculty of Law, Vice-President ofŠtich, Zuzana Lamošová and Katarína Tichá Hudecová. Comenius University (1997 – 2003), deputy of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (1998 – ARRA is the first independent institution to decide 2002)to provide the public with regular reports on the quality of ix. PhDr. Dušan Kováč, DrSc. (invited to BoA’sindividual universities in Slovakia and information sessions), historian, Deputy Chairman of the SAVcomparing them with each other. ARRA provides this x. Prof. PhDr. Mária Kusá, CSc., professor of Russianinformation by fulfilling its objectives and abiding by and Lithuanian Literature and Translatology at thequality evaluation procedures agreed in advance. UK Faculty of Philosophy, Bratislava xi. Prof. RNDr. Ján Pišút, DrSc. professor of physics atIts objectives include: the Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and• providing the public with information on the quality of Informatics, Comenius University, Minister of individual higher education institutions in Slovakia Education (1990 – 1992) and of the SAV, xii. Prof. Ing. arch. Štefan Šlachta, CSc. professor of• introducing a method of assessing the quality of architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts in education provided by higher education institutions in Bratislava, President of the VŠVU, deputy of the Slovakia, National Council of the Slovak Republic (1998 –• creating an independent evaluation of the quality of 2002), Head Architect of the Capital of the Slovak education provided in individual study programs and Republic – Bratislava fields of study in higher education institutions in xiii. Prof. Ing. Ivan Wilhelm, CSc., professor of physics Slovakia, at the Charles University in Prague, president of• regularly ranking higher education institutions, the Charles University (2000 – 2006) affiliated faculties and sections by the quality of the education they provide and the quality of their 11.1.2 Board of Trustees research and development (“ranking”),• assigning higher education institutions a rating based i. Jozef Kollár, former Chairman of the Board of on the level of quality of their individual activities, Ľudová banka (Chairman)• attempting to stimulate competition among individual ii. Radoslav Baťo, editor in chief, Trend weekly universities and their faculties. iii. Imrich Béreš, Chairman of the Board, Prvá stavebná sporiteľňaThe role of the agency is not to replace the duties and iv. Martin Fronc, MP of the National Council of thetasks of the SR Government Accreditation Commission. Slovak Republic, Minister of Education (2002 – 2006) v. Juraj Kotian, Head Economist of Slovenská11.1 People at ARRA sporiteľňa vi. Pavol Lančarič, General Manager, Orange Slovensko11.1.1 Board of Advisors vii. Ivan Mikloš, MP of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, Deputy Prime Minister (1998 – i. Prof. Ing. Ivan Štich, PhD. (Chairman), professor 2006) and Minister of Finance (2002 – 2006) at the STU Faculty of Electrical Engineering and viii. Jaroslav Pilát, Executive director of M.E.S.A.10 Information Technology, Bratislava ix. Andrej Salner, Slovak Governance Institute (SGI) ii. Prof. RNDr. Pavol Brunovský, DrSc., professor of x. Ján Tóth, Head Economist, ING Bank mathematics at the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, the founder of the study of economic and financial mathematics 11.1.3 ARRA members at the FMFI UK i. Juraj Barta, Chairman iii. Dr. h. c. Prof. Ing. Ferdinand Devínsky, DrSc., ii. Ferdinand Devínsky professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at the UK iii. Michal Fedák Faculty of Pharmacy, president of Comenius iv. Ján Pišút University (1997 – 2003), Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Education, Science, Youth and Sports, Culture, and Media (2002 – 11.1.4 ARRA Secretariat 2006), Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee Zuzana Lamošová, Executive Director for Education, Youth, Science and Sports (since Katarína Tichá Hudecová, Project Manager 2006) iv. doc. RNDr. Vladimír Ferák, CSc., associate professor of genetics at the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences (1997 – 2003) v. Prof. Július Horváth, PhD., professor of economics at the Central European University in Budapest (CEU) and at the UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences 153