• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
University rankings; an overview for the municipality of Delft July 2013
 

University rankings; an overview for the municipality of Delft July 2013

on

  • 739 views

I gave this presentation for several strategic policy advisor the municipality of Delft in the ‘Metropoollab’. ...

I gave this presentation for several strategic policy advisor the municipality of Delft in the ‘Metropoollab’.

Thanks to Johan Verweij & Jan Salden
I elaborated on Johans presentations & used U-Multirank sheets of Jan.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
739
Views on SlideShare
735
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

https://twitter.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • UIRC Scoreboard: TU Delft has even a second positionwith default “Exclude publications in special types of journals” in the Leiden ranking.UIRC 2013 scoreboard on university-industry research connections and cooperation (copublicationswith industry)4 QS Subject Rankings in top 100: Computer Science & Info Systems,QS Chemistry,QS Earth & Marine Sciences andQS Physics & Astronomy (51-100)2 QS Subject Rankings in top 200:Mathematics (101-150) & QS Education (151-200)
  • IndicatorenIndustry income: innovation (worth 2.5 per cent)Research income from industry (per academic staff)Research: volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent)Reputational survey – researchResearch income (scaled)Papers per academic and research staffCitations: research influence (worth 30 per cent)Citation impact (normalised avarage citations per paper)International outlook: staff, students and research (worth 7.5 per cent)Ratio of international to domestic staffRatio of international to domestic studentsProportion of internationally co-authored research papersTeaching: the learning environment (worth 30 per cent)Reputational survey – teachingPhD awards per academicUndergraduatesadmitted per academicIncome per academicPhD awards / bachelor awards
  • QS Civil & Struct. Eng. (4)QS Chemical Eng. (10)QS Environmental Sciences (17)QS Materials Science (32)QS Mechanical Eng. (18)QS Electrical Eng. (42)4 QS Subject Rankings2 QS Subject Rankings
  • This ensures that institutional comparisons are “like with like” and not “apples and oranges”.Waarom: StudentenGeïnformeerde studiekeuzeKennisinstellingenPositionering, zichtbaarheid, strategische vergelijkingenBeleidsmakersInzicht in diversiteit en performanceBedrijvenPartners voor samenwerking

University rankings; an overview for the municipality of Delft July 2013 University rankings; an overview for the municipality of Delft July 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • 1Challenge the future International Rankings of Universities An overview for the municipality of Delft Kim Huijpen, Corporate Policy Affairs | 04/07/13
  • 2Challenge the future About me Kim Huijpen • Policy Advisor TU Delft • Strategic Development / Corporate Policy Affairs • Member of the Delft city council • Committee Society and Housing • Member of D66
  • 3Challenge the future International university rankings 1. Context 2. Criticism 3. Overview 4. The position of the TU Delft in important rankings 5. New initiatives to improve rankings 6. How do we use international rankings? And how do you use international university rankings?
  • 4Challenge the future Context Rankings fill in a need • Stakeholders – students, parents, governments, accreditation councils, industry (inter)national organizations – want to know the differences between HEI’s and how they perform Rankings are more and more used (directly or indirectly via reputation) • By the media • By governmental institutions (reallocation of funds) • By students (Asia) • By HEI‟s themselves! For marketing purposes or to select partners for cooperation • By local governments?
  • 5Challenge the future International rankings, criticism and new developments Most important international rankings in 2013 • QS-, THE-, Shanghai-, Leiden-ranking • Not 4 rankings, but much more (also subject & reputation rankings) Criticism • Content: bias for big & old universities, focus on research, bias for natural & medical sciences, language bias, comparison of whole HEI‟s • Methodology: adding up all kind of indicators, numbering, dubious weighting, intransparency, institutions deliver data, methodological changes
  • 6Challenge the future Criticism Conceptual 1. Some universities have an advantage: Anglo-Saxon, beta- and medical disciplines, focus on research, big, old, general 2. You can’t compare whole universities 3. You can’t add up all the indicators Methodology 1. Underpinning of the weight factors 2. Sensitivity for outliers: best HEI=100 (z-scores are better) 3. Methodological changes in time Data 1. Limited or no insight in the raw data 2. Data provided by HEI’s themselves: mistakes, manipulation
  • 7Challenge the future Overview: similarities and differences Ranking Focus Indicators Data Time Type THE Research Education Internat. Income Subjective Objective Own Research Dbase (WoS) Data HEI’s Present General Field QS Research Education Internat. Subjective Objective Own Research Dbase (Scopus) Data HEI’s Present General Field Shanghai Research Objective Dbases (e.g. WoS, Nobel-prize.org) Past Present General Field Subject Leiden Research Objective Dbase (WoS) Present General HEEACT Research Objective Dbase (WoS/ESI) Present General Field Subject
  • 8Challenge the future TU Delft in rankings ‘12 & spring ‘13 World University Rankings Engineering/ Technology Rankings Other Rankings Subject Rankings Top 10 UIRC Scoreboard (3) QS Civil & Struct. Eng. (4) QS Chemical Eng. (10) Top 50 QS (18) QS Environmental Sciences (17) THE (32) QS Materials Science (32) QS Mechanical Eng. (18) QS Electrical Eng. (42) Top 100 THE (77) Shanghai (76-100) THE Reputation (51-60) 4 QS Subject Rankings Top 200 QS (103) 2 QS Subject Rankings Leiden (164) Top 300 Shanghai (201-300) Taiwan (276)
  • 9Challenge the future THE-ranking (with Thomson Reuters) Fields: •‘Engineering & Technology’ •‘Life Sciences’ •‘Clinical, pre-clinical & Health’ •‘Physical Science’ •‘Social Sciences’ •‘Arts & Humanities’ Ranking by field: based on same 13 indicators with slightly different weights
  • 10Challenge the future What is citation impact? • Citation impact is one of the key indicators in most rankings • With a citation an author acknowledges the original author, year, title, and source of an idea in a new publication • Citations are measures of the impact of the cited work • Citation „cultures‟ differ between disciplines therefore we calculate citation impact normalized for field differences
  • 11Challenge the future Position of 3TU, LDE & IDEA League in THE ranking University World University Rankings 2012- 13 (2011) Engineering & Technology Ranking 2012- 13 (2011) TU Delft 77 (104) 32 (22) TU Eindhoven 114 (115) - Universiteit Twente 187 (200) - Universiteit Leiden 64 (79) - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam 72 (157) - Imperial College London 8 (8) 10 (10) ETH Zürich 12 (15) 8 (9) Ecole Polytechnique* 62 (63) 29 (29) Aachen RWTH 154 (168) - * ParisTech exists of eleven „Grandes Ecoles Paris‟ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known.
  • 12Challenge the future THE Engineering and Technology Universities 2012 Position THE Engineering & Technology ranking 2012-13 (2011) 1 Caltech, US (2) 2 Princeton University, US (3) 2 MIT, US (1) 4 University of California, Berkeley, US (4) 5 University of Cambridge, VK (6) / Stanford University, US (5) Highest non UK/US nr. 8 ETH Zürich (Switzerland) Highest European (non UK/US) nr. 8 ETH Zürich (Switzerland)
  • 13Challenge the future Indicators QS ranking Fields: • Arts & Humanities • Engineering & Technology • Life Sciences & Medicine • Natural Sciences • Social Sciences & Management Ranking by field: • Based on same indicators • Weightings are different
  • 14Challenge the future Position of 3TU, LDE & IDEA League in QS ranking * ParisTech exists of eleven „Grandes Ecoles Paris‟ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known. University General ranking (2011) Engineering and Technology ranking (2011) Natural Sciences ranking (2011) TU Delft 103 (104) 18 (18) 91 (79) TU Eindhoven 158 (146) 67 (61) 186 (177) Universiteit Twente 224 (226) 101 (116) 267 (229) Universiteit Leiden 75 (88) - 89 (80) Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam 99 (103) - - Imperial College London 6 (6) 6 (6) 11 (11) ETH Zürich 13 (18) 8 (8) 10 (10) Ecole Polytechnique* 41 (36) 36 (36) 43 (40) Aachen RWTH 150 (140) 30 (35) 83 (82)
  • 15Challenge the future Position of TU Delft in QS Subject rankings
  • 16Challenge the future Indicators Shanghai-ranking (since '03) Focus Indicators Weighting Quality of education Alumni winning Nobel prizes and fields medals Alumni 10% Quality of faculty Staff winning Nobel prizes and fields medals Award 20% Highly cited researchers HiCI 20% Research output Articles and papers in Nature and Science N&S 20% Articles and papers in SCI and SSCI PUB 20%
  • 17Challenge the future Position of 3TU, LDE & IDEA League in Shanghai ranking * ParisTech exists of eleven „Grandes Ecoles Paris‟ of which Ecole Polytechnique is the most well known. University Academic Ranking of World Universities - 2012 (2011) TU Delft 201-300 (151-200) Universiteit Twente 301-400 (301-400) TU Eindhoven 301-400 (301-400) Universiteit Leiden 73 (65) Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam 151-200 (151-200) ETH Zürich 23 (23) Imperial College London 24 (24) Ecole Polytechnique* 301-400 (301-400) RWTH Aachen University 201-300 (201-300)
  • 18Challenge the future Shanghai-ranking calculated trend 242 224 234 191 194 197 193 185 197 214 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Calculated positions TU Delft on Shanghai ranking These calculated scores are based on calculations per indicator by University of Groningen
  • 19Challenge the future Leiden ranking
  • 20Challenge the future Position TU Delft on impact indicators Leiden Ranking 2010-2013 Ranking 2010 2011 2011* 2013 2013* Leiden-ranking (Worldwide top 500) Old ‘Crown Indicator' (CPP/FCSm) 123 ‘Alternative Crown Indicator' (MNCS) 176 189 99 219 168 Proportion top 10% publications (PPtop 10%) 179 115 203 164 * Size-independent indicators, impact indicators using fractional counting & exclude publications in special types of journals
  • 21Challenge the future Position Dutch universities Industry Research Connections 2013 World NL Uni PP(UI collab) 1 1 Eindhoven University of Technology 15,6% 2 2 Delft University of Technology 14,0% 18 3 Wageningen University and Research Centre 10,1% 24 4 University of Twente 9,8% 137 5 Erasmus University Rotterdam 7,4% 147 6 Leiden University 7,3% 153 7 Maastricht University 7,2% 160 8 Utrecht University 7,1% 186 9 University of Groningen 6,9% 214 10 VU University Amsterdam 6,5% 253 11 Radboud University Nijmegen 6,1% 257 12 University of Amsterdam 6,1% Or #3 with different counting
  • 22Challenge the future New developments Improvement of existing rankings • More attention for education, finance and field (QS, THE) • More representative survey on reputation (QS, THE) • Rankings per field and subject (Shanghai, QS) New rankings and classifications (education and third mission, fields and subjects, ranking per indicator, no numbering) • CHE university ranking: BSc-students • CHE excellence ranking: MSc/PhD-students • U-Map (CHEPS): types/profiles • U-Multirank (CHERPA/CHE): institutional and field* rankings * e.g. engineering
  • 23Challenge the future 2
  • 24Challenge the future What is U-Multirank? 2 Multi-dimensional • Performance comparison not only on research but also on education, exploitation, international orientation and regional involvement. Multi-level • Performance profiles based on a broad set of indicators. The performance profiles are available at two levels: institution as a whole and underlying disciplinary fields. Multi-stakeholder • Designed in close consultation with stakeholders and intended for - students, administrators, policy makers, employers, etc. - to meet their needs. Multi-ranking • Users can decide which areas of performance to include in the comparison of the selected group of universities; in this way U-Multirank produces personalised rankings.
  • 25Challenge the future Multi-dimensional, -level, - stakeholder, -ranking 2
  • 26Challenge the future QS Best student cities Methodology • “Two pre-requisites have been established to identify the cities evaluated in this exercise. The first is that each city must have a population of over 250,000, the second that it must be home to at least two ranked institutions. Current calculations suggest that 98 cities in the world qualify on this basis.” 1: Paris, 2: London, 3: Boston, 4: Melbourne , 5: Vienna and 36: Amsterdam
  • 27Challenge the future Indicators of QS Best student cities • Student mix • Student Population: as a proportion of the city‟s population • International Volume: number of international students in the city International Ratio: number of international students as a proportion of all students • Quality of living • Mercer Quality of Living Survey 2011 • Employer activity • Domestic Employer Popularity: Number of domestic employers who identified one institution in the city as producing excellent graduates • International Employer Popularity [x2] • Affordability • Tuition Fees [x2], Big Mac Index & Mercer Cost of Living Index
  • 28Challenge the future Mercer's Quality of Living ranking The Quality-of-living index encompasses 39 different factors within the following 10 categories: • Political and social environment • Economic environment • Socio-cultural environment • Medical and health considerations • Schools and education • Public services and transport • Recreation • Consumer goods • Housing • Natural environment
  • 29Challenge the future How do we use international rankings? Until now • Participation in rankings • Internal memos for the Executive Board • Annual report • Roadmap 2020 • Website‘facts and figures’ • Marketing and PR
  • 30Challenge the future Messages • More and more international rankings (need) • Are used by several stakeholders and affect your reputation • Are biased and have methodological drawbacks • However, methodologies are improving • Nevertheless, important to be in the rankings • It is difficult for specialized universities to reach a high position in general rankings (TU Delft: technology/engineering) • However, field normalization is improving • New initiatives to improve international rankings: • U Multirank
  • 31Challenge the future Questions and discussion: Which rankings are relevant for the municipality of Delft ? Which rankings do you choose for marketing purposes? • More information: • www.3tu.nl/uploads/media/Rankings_en_3TU.pdf • Thanks to Johan Verweij & Jan Salden • I elaborated on Johans presentations & used U-Multirank sheets of Jan Kim Huijpen, Policy Advisor, TU Delft / Corporate Policy Affairs T +31 (0)15 27 85296 | E K.Huijpen@tudelft.nl | @KimHuijpen
  • 32Challenge the future References Some ranking websites: • http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking • http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012 • http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html • http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking • http://www.topuniversities.com/best-student-cities • http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/DataPage/OverallRanking.aspx • http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013/reputation-ranking Twitter: #unirankings