Saloni aul report_higher_education_management copy

Saloni aul report_higher_education_management copy

• 1.
  REPORT DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FORRANKING INDIAN UNIVERSITIES Presented to: Dr. Padmakumair Nair Director LM THAPAR SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT By: SALONI AUL aul.saloni60@gmail.com MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Marketing & Higher Education Management LM THAPAR SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT DANUBE UNIVERSITY, KREMS • IDENTIFYING MAJOR RANKING ASSOCIATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES OR UNIVERSITIES
• 2.
  • IDENTIFY THESIX DIMENSIONS i) How this is not effective in India ii) How are these dimensions not suitable for the rankings to actually measure the university status in India • DEVELOPING A SIX DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK SUITABLE FOR INDIAN UNIVERSITIES TOP 3 WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS: 1. The QS World University Ranking ranks the universities using six metrics that can effectively capture university performance. The QS system now comprises the global overall and subject rankings (which name the world's top universities for the study of 48 different subjects and five composite faculty areas), alongside five independent regional tables (Asia, Latin America, Emerging Europe and Central Asia, the Arab Region, and BRICS. Thus, universities continue to be evaluated according to the following six metrics: 1 Academic Reputation 2 Employer Reputation 3 Faculty/Student Ratio 4 Citations per faculty 5 International Faculty Ratio 6 International Student Ratio f igure1: this f igure depicts the percentage weightage of all 6 indicators in the ov erall ranking. 2. The Times Higher Education Rankings is an annual publication of university ranking and it comprises the world’s overall, subject, and reputation rankings. It lists top 100 universities in the world, making it biggest international league table. This table judges research intensive universities across all of their core missions: • teaching • research • knowledge transfer • international outlook
• 3.
  f igure 2:this f igure shows the indicators used f or the univ ersity rankings worldwide dif f erentiating 5 ov erall indicators i.e. main heads and the indiv idual indicators under each head and the weightage of each indicator in the ov erall ranking. 3. The Academic Ranking of World Universities also known as Shanghai Ranking is often praised for the objectivity, stability and transparency of its methodology. The publication currently includes global league tables for institutions and a whole and for a selection of individual subjects, alongside independent regional Greater China Ranking and Macedonian HEIs Rankings. f igure3: this f igure shows the methodology of ARWU i.e. criterion f or rankings and its indiv idual indicators with their weightage.
• 4.
  - The dimensionsused for overall ranking of the universities is not effective in India because of many reasons. - In this report, I prefer to describe all the 6 dimensions of QS World University Ranking and criticise why they are not effective while ranking Indian universities. Indian institutions operate under circumstances not captured in international rankings and these have to be captured in a different set of parameters. Partha Chakrabarti, director IIT Kharagpur recommended that, like the Chinese, India should develop its own ranking system. And once the methodology stabilised, it could be used to compare Indian institutions fairly with the best in the world. The QS Ranking and the Times Higher Education World University rankings had subjective criteria and some data from them was not public. Reputation surveys were generally skewed towards US and European universities, as Asianuniversities were not well known around the world. QS designed its rankings in order to assess performance using six criteria — academic reputation (40%), employer reputation (10%), student-faculty ratio (20%), citations per faculty (20%), internationalisation (5% each) for faculty and students. Other than citations per faculty, Indian institutions would falter in them. ACADEMIC REPUTATION 40% This is assessed using data from the large global survey of academics conducted by QS each year. The results of this survey, which asks academics to identify the leading universities in their own subject area. The aim is to give an indication of which universities hold the strongest reputation within the international academic community. EMPLOYER REPUTATION 10% This is assessed using the results of a major international survey, this time of graduate employers, who are asked to identify the universities they perceive as producing the highest- quality graduates.
• 5.
  The results ofthis survey are used to inform a number of other QS research projects, reflecting the importance of employability and employment prospects for today’s university applicants and graduates. STUDENT-FACULTY RATIO 20% This indicator assesses the ratio of full-time academic staff members employed per student enrolled. The aim is to give an idea of how much contact time and academic support students at the institution may expect to receive. CITATIONS PER FACULTY 20% Citations assessed using data from the Scopus database of research publications and citations. This first assesses the number of citations per research paper published, aiming to give an idea of the impact each institution’s research is having within the research community. The second assesses the number of research papers published per faculty member. This provides an indication of the overall research productivity of the university. INTERNATIONAL FACULTY AND STUDENTS which carries (5% each) in the overall score: • A highly international university acquires and confers a number of advantages. It demonstrates an ability to attract faculty and students from across the world, which in turn suggests that it possesses a strong international brand. • It implies a highly global outlook: essentially for institutions operating in an internationalised higher education sector. • It also provides both students and staff alike with a multinational environment, facilitating exchange of best practices and beliefs. • In doing so, it provides students with international sympathies and global awareness: soft skills increasingly valuable to employers. Both of these metrics are worth 5% of the overall total. The three ranking surveys use methodologies that emphasize academic research and faculty citation in journals, followed by other measures like employer reputation, academic reputation, faculty-student ratio, and the international composition of faculty and students. Indian universities lose out on many of these fronts. In addition to lack of research citations, they perform badly on other metrics like faculty-to- student ratios and lack of internationalism. In India, Institutions do not have many international faculty or students. In the QS rankings last year, the top Indian institution, IISc, had no scores for employer reputation, international faculty or international students. Institutions in India are at a disadvantage here, as the domestic demand is high. China also has a high demand for the domestic faculty and students but the case is different. In India demand is an increasing problem but in China it is a decreasing problem. Indian elite institutions, under pressure admit more students who are not likely to go international in the near future. QS stands for Quacquarelli Symonds, a British company that specialises in education and overseas studies, whose important parameter is mobility or exchange of students and faculty globally.
• 6.
  CRITIQUE: INTERNATIONAL FACULTYAND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS How is this dimension not effective in India ? More international students at World’s top ranked universities The mass expansion of international student mobility has been a major global trend over the last 30 years. And the latest data from the QS Intelligence Unit shows that the number of international students at the world’s top-ranked universities has again accelerated. International enrolments at the top 400 universities in the QS World University Rankings® grew by 80,000 this year, to a total of 1.37 million. This represents an average of approximately 3,400 international students per institution, up from 3,225 in 2012 – an annual growth of 6.5%. The trend is even more evident among the elite top 100 universities, where international student enrolments grew by 9% to an average of approximately 5,100 per institution. source: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/more-international- students-worlds-top-ranked-universities Top-ranked universities likely to be more international The correlation between universities’ ranking position and international student enrolments is evident across the full range of universities in the QS World University Rankings 2013/2014. International students would choose to apply to universities with the strongest international reputations. And in turn, as universities become more internationally diverse, their international reputations also grow in strength. So it seems likely that a circular effect is at play. The proportion of international students is itself one of the indicators used in compiling the QS World University Rankings – but it only accounts for 5% of a university’s overall score. The latest trends in international student mobility While the QS data-set doesn’t indicate where the students are coming from or what programs they are undertaking, it provides the most current view on student mobility at the institutional level globally. Most student mobility data, such as Education at a Glance, IIE’s Open Doors, the British Council, and so on, tends to have a fairly long time-lag to publication. The QS data, which is current to within weeks or a few months rather than many months or years, offers a more current insight into global trends. In an era where the international dimension is core business for all world-class universities, and the internationalisation of research, teaching and community engagement is carefully considered in strategic planning processes, this makes it an important resource for all those with an interest in the sector. Effect of Rankings Rankings affect universities' decisions about their international partnerships. Such partnerships have become strategically important for research, academic programmes,and student/faculty exchanges. According to an international survey, 57 per cent of respondents said their institute's ranking was influencing whether researchers in other HE institutions partnered with them, and 34 per cent said they felt rankings were influencing whether academic or professional organisations would accept their membership. For a university, not being ranked can mean a university becomes invisible to international PhD students, 'world-class' researchers, academic partners, philanthropists and donors. Rankings have placed a new premium on status and reputation, with a strong bias towards long- established and well-endowed institutions, usually with medical schools,in developed countries. This
• 7.
  system makes itimpossible for developing country universities to compete with the big players in the United States or Europe. The gap between elite and mass education and between universities in the developed and developing world is likely to widen. 5 Dimensional framework has been designed by MHRD after studying the drawbacks of the top 3 world university ranking associations. Introducing National framework by Ministry of Human Resource Development for ranking of institutions in India: • The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has been approved by the MHRD and launched by Honourable Minister of Human Resource Development on 29th September, 2015. This framework outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country. • The methodology draws from the overall recommendations and broad understanding arrived at by a Core Committee set up by MHRD, to identify the broad parameters for ranking various universities and institutions. • The parameters broadly cover "Teaching, Learning and Resources", "Research and Professional Practices", "Graduation Outcomes", "Outreach and Inclusivity" and "Perception". • NIRF has been given the responsibility of ranking institutions that have applied and submitted their data. • The ranking of the Institutions will be done based on the parameters proposed by NIRF for different disciplines. • The need for the NIRF has been realised because indian universities were not able to get top positions in the world university ranking, the reason for this has later been identified that the ranking indicators were not suitable with the structure of indian universities. source: https://w w w .nirfindia.org/Home
• 8.
  PARAMETERS FOR RANKINGUNDER NIRF CONCLUSION • The imperative for creating India-specific rankings has come from the poor performance of our universities in world university rankings. • Many higher education experts have for long argued that our universities rank low or are entirely missing from the charts because many of the parameters used by international ranking bodies such as Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), Times Higher Education (THE) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (the Shanghai Rankings) — especially international reputation and internationalisation but also research output — are insensitive to the higher education scenario in countries such as India where the goal of improving access to higher education, whether by building new institutions in far-flung places or through caste-based reservations, has been a bigger priority than improving the quality of education. • In particular, world university rankings by QS and others give far too much emphasis on internationalisation (the presence of international students and faculty, among other things) and reputation (which favours older, established Western institutions), areas in which India’s
• 9.
  universities are weak,and ignore parameters such as social inclusion, about which we have been more attentive given the context of our history, level of development, ethnic diversity and social make up. • Poor performance in internationalising their campuses and a low research score have pulled down Indian higher education institutes such as the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and some of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2018. • While IISc has dropped from the 201-250 band in the previous rankings to the 251-300 band, • IIT-Delhi and IIT-Kanpur have fallen from the 401-500 band to the 501-600 band. IIT-Madras fell from the 401-500 band to the 601-800 cohort. • Indian universities performed poorly on internationalisation, with all except one dropping places, mainly due to other universities rising at a faster rate. • Government policy limits the number of foreign students who can study in India and prevents international scholars from being hired in long-term faculty positions. THE is of the view that India may recover on this metric on the back of its world-class university plan, which aims to provide additional funding to select public and private universities for infrastructure and academics. source: World Univ ersity Rankings 2018: No Indian institute in top 200 http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-af f airs/the-world-univ ersity -rankings-2018-no-indian-institute-in-top-200-117090501136_1.html