International rankings of universities<br />An overview for managers M&C TU Delft<br />Kim Huijpen, Strategic Policy Affai...
International rankings<br />Context<br />Criticism<br />Overview<br />The position of the TU Delft<br />New initiatives to...
Context<br />Rankings fill in a need<br />Stakeholders – students, parents, governments, accreditation councils, industry ...
International rankings, criticism and new developments<br />Most important international rankings in 2011<br />QS-, THE-, ...
Criticism<br />Conceptual<br />some universities have an advantage: Anglo-Saxon, beta- and medical disciplines, focus on r...
Overview: similarities and differences<br />
QS World University Rankings® & Times Higher Education World University Rankings<br />In October 2009, QS and THE endedthe...
‘life sciences & biomedicine’‘engineering & IT’
‘social sciences’
‘arts and humanities</li></ul>Ranking by field: solely based on ‘academic peer review’<br />
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (general)TU Delft from 108 (2010) to 104 (2011)<br />
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (engineering)TU Delft stayed at position 18<br />
QS-ranking 2005-2011 (natural sciences)TU Delft from 84 (2010) to 79 (2011)<br />
THE-ranking (with Thomson Reuters)<br />Fields:<br /><ul><li>‘Engineering & Technology’
‘Life Sciences’
‘Clinical, pre-clinical & Health’
‘Physical Science’
‘Social Sciences’
‘Arts & Humanities’</li></ul>Ranking by field: based on same 13 indicators with slightly different weighting<br />
Position of 3TU’s, LDE and IDEA League in THE-ranking 2011<br />* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of whi...
THE Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012 (Top 50)<br />TU Delft rose from 33 (2010) to 22 (2011)<br />TU Delf...
Citation impact THE (30%) vsnew Crown Indicator CWTS <br />Position of Dutch universities: THE-ranking ’11 (blue) & new Cr...
Indicators Shanghai-ranking (since '03)<br />
Shanghai-ranking 2011 (general)TU Delft: 151-200<br />* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole P...
Shanghai-ranking 2011Field Rankings <br />The TU Delft and University of Twente are in only one of five Field Rankings (to...
New developments<br />improvement of existingrankings<br />more attention foreducation, financeand field (THE)<br />more r...
U-Map dimensions<br />Teaching & learning profile<br />Student profile<br />Research involvement<br />Knowledge exchange<b...
Example European Classification of HEI’s (U-Map)<br />
How do we use international rankings?<br />Until now<br />Participation in QS-/THE-/CHE-ranking and U-map<br />Internal me...
“Proof of the pudding…?”<br />
Reserved way of commenting<br />TU Delft 22ste in Times Top 50 Technology Universities<br />Collegevoorzitter Dirk Jan van...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

International rankings of universities; An overview for managers M&C TU Delft

1,737 views
1,615 views

Published on

Presentation on international rankings of universities by Kim Huijpen.

Presented on Monday the 17th of October 2011 to managers Marketing & Communication of Delft University of Technology .

Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij. Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets from earlier presentations by Johan Verweij.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,737
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

International rankings of universities; An overview for managers M&C TU Delft

  1. 1. International rankings of universities<br />An overview for managers M&C TU Delft<br />Kim Huijpen, Strategic Policy Affairs | 17/10/11<br />
  2. 2. International rankings<br />Context<br />Criticism<br />Overview<br />The position of the TU Delft<br />New initiatives to improve rankings<br />How do we use international rankings?<br />Do we influence international rankings?<br />
  3. 3. Context<br />Rankings fill in a need<br />Stakeholders – students, parents, governments, accreditation councils, industry (inter)national organizations – want to know the differences between HEI’s and how they perform<br />Rankings are more and more used (directly or indirectly via reputation)<br />By the media<br />By governmental institutions (reallocation of funds)<br />By students (Asia)<br />By HEI’s themselves! For marketing purposes or to select partners for cooperation<br />
  4. 4. International rankings, criticism and new developments<br />Most important international rankings in 2011<br />QS-, THE-, Shanghai-, HEEACT-, Leiden-ranking<br />not 5 rankings, but 66 (11+6+7+17+25)<br />Criticism<br />content: bias for big & old universities, focus on research, bias for natural & medical sciences, language bias, comparison of whole HEI’s<br />methodology: adding up all kind of indicators, numbering, dubious weighting, intransparency, institutions deliver data, methodological changes<br />
  5. 5. Criticism<br />Conceptual<br />some universities have an advantage: Anglo-Saxon, beta- and medical disciplines, focus on research, big, old, general<br />you can’t compare whole universities<br />you can’t add up all the indicators<br />Methodology<br />underpinning of the weight factors<br />sensitivity for outliers: best HEI=100 (z-scores are better)<br />methodological changes in time<br />Data<br />limited or no insight in the raw data<br />data provided by HEI’s themselves: mistakes, manipulation<br />
  6. 6. Overview: similarities and differences<br />
  7. 7. QS World University Rankings® & Times Higher Education World University Rankings<br />In October 2009, QS and THE endedtheircollaboration<br />Nowthere are tworankings:<br />QS World University rankings(QS-ranking) with the methodology of the old ranking<br /><ul><li>Published in September 2011</li></ul>A new ranking by the Times Higher Education Supplement with Thomson Reuters: Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-ranking)<br /><ul><li>Published in October 2011</li></li></ul><li>Indicators QS ranking (old THE)<br />Fields:<br /><ul><li>‘natural science’
  8. 8. ‘life sciences & biomedicine’‘engineering & IT’
  9. 9. ‘social sciences’
  10. 10. ‘arts and humanities</li></ul>Ranking by field: solely based on ‘academic peer review’<br />
  11. 11. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (general)TU Delft from 108 (2010) to 104 (2011)<br />
  12. 12. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (engineering)TU Delft stayed at position 18<br />
  13. 13. QS-ranking 2005-2011 (natural sciences)TU Delft from 84 (2010) to 79 (2011)<br />
  14. 14. THE-ranking (with Thomson Reuters)<br />Fields:<br /><ul><li>‘Engineering & Technology’
  15. 15. ‘Life Sciences’
  16. 16. ‘Clinical, pre-clinical & Health’
  17. 17. ‘Physical Science’
  18. 18. ‘Social Sciences’
  19. 19. ‘Arts & Humanities’</li></ul>Ranking by field: based on same 13 indicators with slightly different weighting<br />
  20. 20. Position of 3TU’s, LDE and IDEA League in THE-ranking 2011<br />* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.<br />
  21. 21. THE Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012 (Top 50)<br />TU Delft rose from 33 (2010) to 22 (2011)<br />TU Delft is the only Dutch university in this ranking <br /> <br />Top 50 Engineering and Technology Universities 2011-2012<br />1 California Institute of Technology, United States<br />1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States<br />3 Princeton University, United States<br />4 University of California, Berkeley, United States<br />5 Stanford University, United States<br />9 ETH Zürich, Switzerland<br />10 Imperial College London, United Kingdom     <br />22 Delft University of Technology, Netherlands<br />29 École Polytechnique, France<br />
  22. 22. Citation impact THE (30%) vsnew Crown Indicator CWTS <br />Position of Dutch universities: THE-ranking ’11 (blue) & new Crown Indicator CWTS ’10 (red)<br />
  23. 23. Indicators Shanghai-ranking (since '03)<br />
  24. 24. Shanghai-ranking 2011 (general)TU Delft: 151-200<br />* ParisTech exists of eleven ‘Grandes Ecoles Paris’ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.<br />
  25. 25. Shanghai-ranking 2011Field Rankings <br />The TU Delft and University of Twente are in only one of five Field Rankings (top 100) between 76-100: <br />‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’ (Engineering, Computer Science en Materials Science)<br />Last year TU Eindhoven was in none of the Field rankings<br />Now TU/e is on position 52-75 of ‘Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences’<br />TU/e has one full professor in ISIHighlyCited.com <br />But:<br />Thomson Reuters seems to stop with ISIHighlyCited.com<br />
  26. 26. New developments<br />improvement of existingrankings<br />more attention foreducation, financeand field (THE)<br />more representative survey on reputation (QS, THE)<br />rankings per field and subject (Shanghai, HEEACT)<br />new rankingsandclassifications (educationandthird mission, fieldsand subjects, ranking per indicator, no numbering)<br />CHE university ranking: BSc-students (EWI/LR, TBM)<br />CHE excellence ranking: MSc/PhD-students (EWI/TNW)<br /><ul><li>2012: EWI</li></ul>U-Map (CHEPS): types/profiles<br />U-Multirank (CHERPA/CHE): institutionaland field* rankings<br />* e.g. engineering<br />
  27. 27. U-Map dimensions<br />Teaching & learning profile<br />Student profile<br />Research involvement<br />Knowledge exchange<br />International orientation<br />Regional engagement<br />Presentation F. van Vught on the 13th DAIR seminar (4-11-09)<br />
  28. 28. Example European Classification of HEI’s (U-Map)<br />
  29. 29. How do we use international rankings?<br />Until now<br />Participation in QS-/THE-/CHE-ranking and U-map<br />Internal memos for the Executive Board <br />Annual report <br />Website‘facts and figures’<br />Marketing and PR<br />
  30. 30. “Proof of the pudding…?”<br />
  31. 31. Reserved way of commenting<br />TU Delft 22ste in Times Top 50 Technology Universities<br />Collegevoorzitter Dirk Jan van den Berg is blij te zien dat de TU Delft in vergelijking met universiteiten wereldwijd goed beoordeeld wordt. De algemene THE World University Ranking kijkt naar 13 indicatoren en probeert zo de universiteit in de volle breedte te beoordelen. “Daarmee is onze positie in de ranking een mooi compliment voor de onderzoekers en docenten.”<br />[...] “Hoe mooi de stijging van de TU Delft en andere Nederlandse universiteiten ook is, het laat ook zien dat het goed is om de waarde van dergelijke ranglijsten te relativeren. Kleine wijzigingen in de methode hebben een grote invloed op de uitkomst.”<br />
  32. 32. How do we choose a ranking for marketing purposes?<br />Ideology<br />versus <br />pragmatism<br />
  33. 33. Should we influence our position in international rankings? No<br />No<br />We hold a good position in the rankings which are most important to us (THE-Technology, Shanghai-Engineering, Leiden- “Crown Indicator”)<br />We use<br />An elaborate internal planning and evaluation cycle providing all kind of data. These data are related to the way the government finances universities (dissertations, students, diploma’s)<br />There are national reviews of our educational- and research-programmes which we use to improve our performance. These reviews include peer reviews and data on publications and citations<br />
  34. 34. Should we influence our position in international rankings? Yes<br />Ways to influence rankings<br />Neglect some rankings (marketing, annual report)<br />Do not participate: <br /><ul><li>no choice: Shanghai, HEEACT, Leiden
  35. 35. choice: QS, THE, CHE, U-Map/U-Multirank</li></ul>Make agreements with other universities about data delivering<br />Make well considered decision about interpretation of definitions<br />Check and influence databases used by rankings:<br /><ul><li>WoS(THE/Shanghai/HEEACT) and Scopus (QS)
  36. 36. WoS/Highly cited (Shanghai)
  37. 37. Recruiters(QS): e.g. 180 HEI’s gave 45.000 names</li></ul>Include ranking-indicators in internal P&E-cycle (choose, monitor and benchmark indicators) <br />
  38. 38. However, it is difficult to influence the rankings<br />Your position is dependent upon<br />Your own performances<br />The performances of other HEI’s<br />The way you and other HEI’s report data to the ranking institutions<br />Methodological changes introduced by the ranking institutions<br />
  39. 39. Messages<br />More and more international rankings (need)<br />Are used by several stakeholders and affect your reputation<br />Are biased and have methodological drawbacks<br />However, methodologies are improving<br />Nevertheless, important to be in the rankings<br />It is difficult for specialized universities to reach a high position in general rankings (TU Delft: technology/engineering)<br />However, field normalization is improving<br />New initiatives to improve international rankings:<br />CHE rankings<br />European Classification and Multidimensional ranking project<br />
  40. 40. Questions and discussion:<br />Do we need a ‘ranking strategy’?<br />Whichrankings do we choosefor marketing purposes?<br />More information: <br />www.3tu.nl/uploads/media/Rankings_en_3TU.pdf<br />Thanksto Johan Verweij<br />I elaborated on his presentations<br />Kim Huijpen, Policy Advisor, TU Delft / Corporate Policy Affairs<br />T +31 (0)15 27 85296 |EK.Huijpen@tudelft.nl | @KimHuijpen<br />
  41. 41. References<br />Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are fromearlierpresentationsby Johan Verweij<br />Sheets 2 and 23 are based on sheets fromearlierpresentationsby Johan Verweij<br />Websites rankings:<br />http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html<br />http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011<br />http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html<br />http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2010/TOP/100<br />http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/cwts/products-services/leiden-ranking-2010-cwts.html<br />

×