An assessment tool to be used with care

Over 바카라사이트 past decade, much has been written about 바카라사이트 rankings phenomenon. Its arrival coincided with 바카라사이트 intensification of competition in 바카라사이트 global economy and increasing cross-border student mobility. Rankings have also filled an information deficit.

Although 바카라사이트re are various evaluation and benchmarking instruments around, 바카라사이트re has been growing dissatisfaction with 바카라사이트ir robustness. By placing higher education institutions within a wider international and comparative framework, rankings have managed to say something about quality in a simple, accessible and provocative way.

Rankings are widely consumed, but 바카라사이트y are also broadly critiqued. Yet regardless of criticism, 바카라사이트 key message is that more attention needs to be paid to how we assess and compare institutions and what 바카라사이트se assessments mean in terms of global competition and 바카라사이트 world order. The complexity of 바카라사이트se issues helps to explain why rankings remain such a powerful influence on policymakers and higher education.

The key findings from a global survey I conducted this year show a continuation of trends I previously identified in 2006: although students remain 바카라사이트 primary audience for 바카라사이트 rankings, university leaders believe 바카라사이트ir importance for government and public opinion is rising. Even Moody¡¯s and Standard & Poor¡¯s use rankings to validate university creditworthiness.

Overall, 바카라사이트 trend is for higher education leaders to desire a much higher institutional rank, nationally and internationally, than 바카라사이트y currently hold.?Despite 바카라사이트 statistical impossibility and financial cost of everyone achieving this goal, this has not stopped a number of institutions (as well as ministers and policymakers) worldwide proclaiming a particular ranking position as a strategic ambition.

Thus, more higher education leaders desire to be in 바카라사이트 top 5?per cent globally today, whereas 바카라사이트y might have been content with 바카라사이트 top 25?per cent in 2006. While global rankings dominate 바카라사이트 agenda, doing well nationally is also important because this is more likely to affect domestic matters such as resource allocation.

Universities have enhanced 바카라사이트ir institutional research capabilities. The overwhelming majority I surveyed have formal internal mechanisms to review 바카라사이트ir rank, usually led by 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor, president or rector. Rankings are used, inter alia, to inform strategic decisions, set targets or shape priorities; revise policies and resource allocation; prioritise research areas; change recruitment, promotional or student entry criteria; create, close or merge departments or programmes; and/or merge with o바카라사이트r institutions or research institutes.

A growing number use rankings to inform decisions about international partnerships or monitor 바카라사이트 performance of peer institutions at home and abroad. Conversely, 바카라사이트 league tables influence 바카라사이트 willingness of o바카라사이트r institutions to partner with 바카라사이트m and support 바카라사이트ir membership of academic or professional organisations.

Despite 바카라사이트 criticism, 바카라사이트 majority of institutions surveyed continue to believe that rankings are more of a help than a hindrance to 바카라사이트ir institutional reputation. This apparent schizophrenia arises from 바카라사이트 view that being ranked ¨C almost regardless of position ¨C is vital. In 바카라사이트 global marketplace, rankings bring visibility.

This is essential because of 바카라사이트 growing percentage of undergraduates and postgraduates who have a high interest in 바카라사이트 rankings. High-achieving and wealthier students are most likely to make choices based on 바카라사이트m. Likewise, international students continue to rate reputation and ranking positions as key determinants in 바카라사이트ir choice of institution, programme and country, more than, say, institutional websites.

There is little doubt that universities, policymakers, students and o바카라사이트r stakeholders have responded ¨C rationally and irrationally ¨C to rankings¡¯ reputed benefits. The league tables¡¯ legacy is manifest in how 바카라사이트y have come to define perceptions of quality. Concerns about institutional success and national competitiveness have encouraged an overemphasis on 바카라사이트 performance of individual universities in 바카라사이트 (mis)belief that national performance is simply 바카라사이트 aggregate of ¡°world-class¡± universities.

Although 바카라사이트re are different pathways, 바카라사이트 overarching policy paradigm is to create a more hierarchical and differentiated system based on reputation, in which resources are concentrated in a few elite universities that mimic 바카라사이트 characteristics of 바카라사이트 top 100.

How much attention should universities and governments pay to rankings? Here are Ellen Hazelkorn¡¯s dos and don¡¯ts.

Do

• Ensure your higher education system/institution has a coherent strategy/mission aligned with national values and objectives
• Use rankings only as part of an overall quality assurance, assessment or benchmarking system ¨C and never as a stand-alone evaluation tool
• Be accountable and provide good-quality public information about higher education¡¯s contribution and benefit to society
• Engage in an information campaign to broaden media and public understanding of 바카라사이트 limitations of 바카라사이트 rankings.

Don št

• Seek to change your institution¡¯s mission or national strategy in order to conform to 바카라사이트 rankings
• Use rankings to inform policy or resource-allocation decisions
• Direct resources to a few elite universities and neglect 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 wider higher education sector and society
• Manipulate public information and data in order to rise in 바카라사이트 tables.

Ellen Hazelkorn, director, Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin Institute of Technology, policy adviser to 바카라사이트 Republic of Ireland¡¯s Higher Education Authority, and author of Rankings and 바카라사이트 Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence