Using Rankings to Drive Internal Quality Improvements Dr. Kevin Downing City University of Hong Kong & Ms. Mandy Mok QS Asia

Dominant Global Ranking Systems Presentation Outline Dominant Global Ranking Systems 1 What’s Wrong With Rankings? 2 What’s the Use of Rankings? 3 Final Remarks 4

THE-QS World University Rankings Academic Peer Review 40% Academics indicate which field they specialise in and then list up to 30 universities they regard as leaders in this field. Composite score drawn from peer review survey (which is divided into five subject areas). Results compiled based on three years’ worth of responses totaling 6,354 in 2008. Safeguards against individuals voting for their own university strengthened. Rise of Asian universities is least apparent in this ranking. International Staff 5% Score calculated based on the proportion of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) faculty that are international. Employer Review 10% Score based on responses to employer survey. 2,339 responses in 2008. Recruiter names are sourced through QS databases, media partners and partner schools & universities. Responses are weighted by region to reach a final score. Staff/Student 20% Score based simply on the student faculty ratio, the higher the number of faculty per student the higher the score. Full- and part-time numbers for staff and students obtained; FTEs used throughout as far as possible. Citation/Staff 20% Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research body . Five years of publication data with citations from Scopus. Number of citations is divided by the number of FTE staff to give an indication of the density of research. International Student 5% Score calculated based on the proportion of total students that are international. THE-QS Rankings

Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities Quality of Education 10% Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. Research Output (SSCI and SCI) 20% Total number of articles indexed by Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Index in the previous year. Only publications of article type are considered. Quality of Faculty (B) 20% Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories. Per Capita Performance 10% Per capita academic performance of an institution. Shanghai Jiao Tong Rankings Research Output (Nature and Science) 20% Articles published in Nature and Science in the previous year. A weight of 100% is assigned for corresponding author affiliation, 50% for first author affiliation (second author affiliation if the first author affiliation is the same as corresponding author affiliation), 25% for the next author affiliation, and 10% for all other author affiliations. Only publications of article type are considered. Quality of Faculty (A) 20% Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals.

What is Wrong with Rankings - The THE-QS Example? Peer Review (40%) Indicator of existing market position of the institution, rather than its particular merits. International Faculty/Student (5% each) Success of the university or its marketing division? Faculty Student Ratio (20%) Not a particularly sophisticated indicator of learning and teaching quality. Employer Review (10%) Indicator of graduate employability and work-readiness rather than academic strength.

Competition: McDonald’s or The Rosetta Stone? The McDonaldisation of Higher Education Higher education is being turned into a commodity, with a menu of ‘fast’ options emerging from the sectorisation of institutions both within their own countries and globally. Sectorisation Sectorisation of institutions into high end research intensive universities and learning and teaching-based universities. Benefit of THE-QS for ‘Younger’ Institutions ‘Younger’ institutions with a rapidly developing research base can take advantage of ranking systems to demonstrate their evolvement to governments and funding bodies to reassess their identified (existing) national roles. Competition and the Rosetta Stone Competition drives improvements and increases the pace of discovery throughout human history. The cost of avoidance of healthy competition is stagnation.

What’s the use of rankings? Global Market Demand International study trends show that world wide demand for education is on the rise. Higher Education is becoming more global and competitive. Global Market Shaping University rankings shape the global market in higher education as much as (or more than) they describe it. By changing the rankings we alter global competition. Global Market Value Knowledge is the key driver of international competitiveness. Ranking will raise global awareness of those institutions and universities being ranked.

Using Rankings to Improve Institutional Quality Identify Core Focus Areas Ranking criteria help an institution focus on core areas of practice and encourage an evidence-based approach to quality improvement. Strategic Planning Data driven decision making based on institutional performance indicators. Strategy can then be aligned with indicators to improve quality. Funding Lobbying Rankings can be used to lobby government and funding bodies.

What’s the use of rankings? Examples from City University of Hong Kong Use ranking criteria to identify appropriate benchmarks in line with institutional aspirations. Benchmark against ‘best practice’ and learn from peer institutions. External Benchmarking College/School Level Departmental Level Annual assessment based on quantitative performance indicators for learning and teaching, research, and knowledge transfer. Establish panel of management and external experts to consider anomalous data or representations from departments. Strategy can then be developed to address issues of accountability and improve quality.

Performance Indicators % International Students Input Quality Index Staffing and Resources Index Output Quality Index Average Entry A-Level Score % Faculty to Total Academic Staff % Faculty with PhD or Professional Accreditation % Outbound Exchange Students % Graduates with FT Employment (within 6 months of completion) % Self-financed Students Average Entry English Score Number of Students Per Faculty % International Faculty % Student with Internship Experience

Staffing and Resources Index Staircase Model Threshold  (One star) Towards Excellence  (Two star) Excellence  (Three star) Input Quality Index Staffing and Resources Index Output Quality Index

Example Growth Chart (Department X)

Example Growth Chart (Department Y)

Final Remarks Rankings provide comparative measures of institutions global standing, they can foster healthy competition among the best higher education institutions. “ ’’

Rankings are here to stay, so better make the best use of them. “ Rankings can be effective self-evaluation tools for universities to bring about practical positive strategic change which will benefit both stakeholders and students. ’’ “ Rankings are here to stay, so better make the best use of them. ’’

Asia: WUR vs. AUR WUR AUR 1 University of TOKYO University of HONG KONG 2 KYOTO University The CHINESE University of Hong Kong 3 4 National University of Singapore (NUS) HONG KONG University of Science and Technology 5 6 OSAKA University 7 KAIST - Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology 8 PEKING University SEOUL National University 9 TOKYO Institute of Technology 10 TSINGHUA University 10= 11 12 Nanyang Technological University (NTU) NAGOYA University 13 TOHOKU University 14 15 FUDAN University KYUSHU University 16 17 National TAIWAN University Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) 18 University of Science & Technology of CHINA CITY University of Hong Kong 19 NANJING University University of TSUKUBA 20 SHANGHAI JIAO TONG University 20= HOKKAIDO University KEIO University