ARRA presentation ceu_february2011


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ARRA presentation ceu_february2011

  1. 1. ARRA Short story of Slovak ranking Juraj Barta Co-founder and chairman of executive board
  2. 2. What is ARRA <ul><li>What is ARRA </li></ul><ul><li>History </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Information assymetry </li></ul><ul><li>Open questions </li></ul>
  3. 3. What is ARRA <ul><li>Independent NGO </li></ul><ul><li>Main purpose: collect information, process it and publish annual ranking of Slovak universities </li></ul><ul><li>Founded in 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>First ranking: 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Other projects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Top Slovak scientists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students, alumni, teachers survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employers demand analysis </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Why did we do it? <ul><li>Quality of higher education was no topic of disputes </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of data-based opinions on universities </li></ul><ul><li>Growth of number </li></ul><ul><li>of schools, students, professors… </li></ul><ul><li>We believed there was a need and demand for an independent view </li></ul><ul><li>We had necessary resources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Skills & Expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reputation & Contacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Willingness </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Public debate ( i llustrations ) <ul><li>Debate on quality lacks quality (Trend) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowing the truth about their level shall help the shools (head of Acreditation committee) </li></ul><ul><li>Quality assessment should be driven by the government (head of Rectors’ conference) </li></ul><ul><li>General feeling: Someone should do it, but not us, not them, not now… </li></ul>
  6. 6. Who founded ARRA? <ul><li>Ferdinand Devinsky , former rector of Commenius university, MP </li></ul><ul><li>Jan Pisut , former minister of education </li></ul><ul><li>Renata Kralikova </li></ul><ul><li>Juraj Barta </li></ul><ul><li>Michal Fedak </li></ul><ul><li>Ivan Ostrovsky </li></ul>
  7. 7. Other people <ul><li>Board of experts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ivan Stich </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ivan Wilhelm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pavel Brunovsky </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Julius Horvath </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jaromir Pastorek </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dusan Kovac </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(…) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Board of Trustees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jozef Kollar </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pavol Lancaric </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Imrich Beres </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rado Bato </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jan Toth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jaroslav Pilat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Martin Fronc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ivan Miklos </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. International cooperation <ul><li>Founding member of International Ranking Experts Group </li></ul><ul><li>Together with other renowned agencies from all over the world </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. Devinsky is a member of the organisations executive body </li></ul>
  9. 9. Principles & Methodology <ul><li>World Bank experts to help us on methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Don Thornhill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lewis Purser </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principles: indepenece, transparency, expertise, data-based statements, no representation of schools nor other bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Res ipsa loquitur </li></ul>
  10. 10. Methodology (1)
  11. 11. Methodology (2)
  12. 12. Methodology ( 3 – c hanges) 2005-2010 major changes & developments : - reputation is not considered - student’s comfort is hard/ineffective to measure and is omitted - No. of publications w/ 5+ citations is redundant (few satisfy this criteria and these institutions have several good results in other research ind ic es) - finances and SV9-10 are available only for universities as a whole, not for particular faculties + articles and books outside WoK are considered for HUM & SPOL
  13. 13. Schools grouping ( compare the comparable ) <ul><ul><li>2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Natural sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Medicine&Pharmacy </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Social sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Arts and Humanities </li></ul><ul><li>2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Natural sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Medicine&Pharmacy </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Philosophy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Law </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Economics & Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Arts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other social sciences </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Information assymetry 1 (theory) <ul><li>Akerlof’s ‘lemons’ </li></ul><ul><li>under prolonged IA quality </li></ul><ul><li>standards drop significantly </li></ul><ul><li>situation in HE: schools have more info about quality than students </li></ul><ul><li>cheaper to teach more students (economies of scale) </li></ul><ul><li>easier to have non-individual approach & teach less info </li></ul>
  15. 15. Information assymetry 2 (SK situation) <ul><li>only 28% of students on Slovak HEIs chose the school primarily based on quality </li></ul><ul><li>in less than 10 years number of Slovak students in CZE quadrupled (5k->22k) </li></ul><ul><li>there was no information about the quality/ranking of Slovak HEIs </li></ul><ul><li>most of Slovak HEIs are perceived alike </li></ul><ul><li>students, who require some quality assurance, tend to go abroad </li></ul>
  16. 16. Information assymetry 3 (SK solution) <ul><li>general ways how to fight IA: warranty, brand, state intervention, independent QA </li></ul><ul><li>warranty is useless in education </li></ul><ul><li>brand consciousness is underdeveloped </li></ul><ul><li>state processes are slow (accreditation took 6 years) and also prone to lobbying (regional politicians, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>best solution in SK = independent quality assessment agency </li></ul>
  17. 17. Information assymetry 4 (implications) <ul><li>debate about the quality of research & edu commenced </li></ul><ul><li>best faculties attract more and better students (STU Chem: from 350->600) </li></ul><ul><li>worst schools in stagnation or even decline (TUAD: from 8100->5700) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Reactions and Achievements <ul><li>Provoking discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Both refusals (method, people…) and supports </li></ul><ul><li>Schools refering to the ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Used as a source of data for EUA </li></ul><ul><li>Even schools who neglected it later reffered to it internally </li></ul><ul><li>Debates no longer based on feelings & debating skills </li></ul><ul><li>Consultancy for Ministry of Education, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Universities, Media… </li></ul><ul><li>From ranking agency to a think tank? </li></ul>
  19. 19. But... <ul><li>Are rankings objective? </li></ul><ul><li>Do not we make the mess worse? </li></ul><ul><li>What has research to do with education? </li></ul><ul><li>Shall the schools be all the same? </li></ul>
  20. 20. Thank you!
  21. 21. Regional peers <ul><li>US News and World Report </li></ul><ul><li>Shanghai ranking </li></ul>2009 2010 University Location 201-302 201-300 Charles University Prague 303-401 301-400 Eotvos Lorand University Budapest 303-401 301-400 Jagiellonian Univeristy Krakow 303-401 301-400 University of Szeged Szeged 303-401 301-400 University of Warsaw Warsaw 402-501 401-500 University of Ljubljana Ljubljana 2009 2010 University Location 229 267 Charles University Prague 302 304 Jagiellonian University Krakov 349 364 University of Warsaw Warsaw 394 - Czech University of Technology Prague
  22. 22. Differences