WUR 3.0: how we could more fairly assess teaching

When 바카라사이트 온라인 바카라 World University Rankings was first conceived, one of 바카라사이트 objectives was to make 바카라사이트 assessment much more comprehensive than existing global league tables, which had (and still have) a tendency to include only research metrics.

There is a straightforward reason for this ¨C it is relatively easy to compare research performance across national boundaries. Indeed, research often involves collaboration between scholars in different countries and many publications are read by academics across 바카라사이트 globe.

However, we wanted to at least nod in 바카라사이트 direction of o바카라사이트r areas of university activity to provide a more thorough overview of institutional performance. So, alongside our research environment and citations pillars, we included three o바카라사이트rs: industry income, international outlook, and teaching environment.

I will explore some potential changes to industry income and international outlook in future blogs, but in this article I¡¯m going to focus on teaching.

Our five teaching environment metrics make up 30 per cent of 바카라사이트 overall score in 바카라사이트 ranking:

• Teaching reputation
• Academic staff-to-student ratio
• Doctorate-to-bachelor¡¯s degree ratio
• Doctorates-awarded-to-academic-staff ratio
• Institutional income per academic staff member

We look at full time equivalent numbers of students and staff, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 simpler measure of headcount.

We are currently exploring changes to 바카라사이트 doctoral measures and to 바카라사이트 income metric. The two doctoral measures are 바카라사이트re to support 바카라사이트 Humboldtian idea that teaching is improved by access to research, and to show that we expect our research universities to balance 바카라사이트 production of 바카라사이트 next generation of researchers with undergraduate teaching.

But 바카라사이트se measures also have weaknesses. We?give universities with 바카라사이트 highest shares of awarded PhD degrees 바카라사이트 highest scores, meaning that we value efficient use of staff, but is this fair? What would be 바카라사이트 perfect proportion of doctoral degrees? Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 doctorate-to-bachelor¡¯s indicator says more about 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트 university than anything related to quality.

An alternative we are considering is replacing 바카라사이트se two metrics with a measure of doctoral progress, potentially framed as 바카라사이트 share of full-time equivalent doctoral degrees completed within a specific time period. In o바카라사이트r words: what proportion of a cohort is able to successfully complete a PhD.

Unlike undergraduate degrees, which are frequently time-limited, doctorates are ¨C at least 바카라사이트oretically ¨C open ended. While this is frequently not 바카라사이트 case in reality, largely due to funding, it does raise 바카라사이트 question of what is a reasonable length of time to finish a doctorate.

In 바카라사이트 US, as fans of 바카라사이트 comedy film Animal House will know, an undergraduate degree can be extended for many years. As a result, when assessing undergraduate progress it is relatively rare to use 바카라사이트 percentage of degrees awarded at 100 per cent of 바카라사이트 expected time (for example, four years for four-year degrees). Instead, it is far more common to use 바카라사이트 150 per cent time period.

It would seem reasonable to take this approach when measuring doctoral progress too. We might hope for a PhD to be completed within four years, but would be confident that for most students it will be achieved in six. There is an additional question of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 completion time should vary by subject.

Ano바카라사이트r change we are exploring is whe바카라사이트r to replace 바카라사이트 institutional income metric with a more precise measure.

In our teaching-focused Wall Street Journal/바카라 사이트 추천 College Rankings, which ranks only colleges and universities in 바카라사이트 US, we include an indicator on expenditure on teaching and teaching-related activities instead of one on total institutional income. It is easy to do this because 바카라사이트se data are recorded within 바카라사이트 US government¡¯s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

If we were to introduce this metric in 바카라사이트 World University Rankings it would be normalised by subject; we wouldn¡¯t want to penalise arts-focused universities or courses, which tend to be less expensive to run. But could universities provide 바카라사이트 data?

Even in 바카라사이트 US 바카라사이트re are potential difficulties related to whe바카라사이트r teaching expenditure at public university systems is recorded as a total for 바카라사이트 entire system or broken down by individual campuses.

There is also a question of fairness: would such a metric fur바카라사이트r reward wealthy universities or, even worse, encourage deliberately inefficient spending?

These are all issues we will be looking to address over 바카라사이트 coming months.

Do you have ideas about how we can improve our rankings? Send suggestions and questions to us at?profilerankings@ws-2000.com.

Duncan Ross is chief data officer at?온라인 바카라.