league tables as policy instruments: the political economy of accountability in tertiary education Jamil Salmi and Alenoush Saroyan 2 nd IREG Meeting Berlin, May 2006

Lexus-Nexus index on rankings Asia/Pacific: Middle East/Africa: Europe: N. & S. America:

The rankings business A ranking of league tables September 10, 2005

and the winner is…

outline of the presentation typology of rankings typology of rankings a world of controversies a world of controversies do rankings measure quality? do rankings measure quality? policy implications policy implications

typology of rankings: how is it done? statistical indicators – –produced by institutions – –publicly available survey of “stakeholders” – –employers – –professors – –students combination of both

typology of rankings: what does it apply to? entire institution or specific program gives a global score or measures several dimensions separately research or teaching / learning

who prepares the ranking? A = Ranking prepared by government agency (Ministry of Higher Education, Higher Education Commission, University Grants Council, etc.) A = Ranking prepared by government agency (Ministry of Higher Education, Higher Education Commission, University Grants Council, etc.) B = Ranking prepared by independent organization / professional association / university B = Ranking prepared by independent organization / professional association / university C = Ranking prepared and published by newspaper / magazine C = Ranking prepared and published by newspaper / magazine D = Ranking prepared by accreditation agency D = Ranking prepared by accreditation agency I = International ranking (IA, IB, IC and ID linking the international dimension to the type of institution conducting the ranking) I = International ranking (IA, IB, IC and ID linking the international dimension to the type of institution conducting the ranking)

ranking systems in 2006 Region National and International Ranking System Eastern Europe and Central Asia Poland (C), Slovakia (B), Russia (B), Ukraine (B) East Asia and Pacific Australia (B), China (B, IB), Hong Kong (C), Japan (C), New Zealand (A), Thailand (A) Latin America and the Caribbean Argentina (D) Middle East and North Africa North America Canada (C), United States (C) South Asia India (D), Pakistan (A) Sub-Saharan Africa Nigeria (A) Western Europe Germany (B/C), Italy (C), Netherlands (A), Spain (B), United Kingdom (A, B, IC)

outline of the presentation typology of rankings typology of rankings a world of controversies a world of controversies

a thin line between love and hate

disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise)

a thin line between love and hate disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) criticism of methodology

a thin line between love and hate disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) criticism of methodology boycotts

boycotts

boycotts Asiaweek US News and World Report

a thin line between love and hate disagreement with principle (“Anglo-Saxon” exercise) criticism of methodology boycotts (Asiaweek, USA) court actions (New Zealand, Holland)

outline of the presentation typology of rankings typology of rankings a world of controversies a world of controversies do rankings measure quality? do rankings measure quality?

the Anglo-Saxon factor

THES 60 out of top SJTU 68 of top US UK Canada Australi a N.Z. HK Singapo re India

shortcomings methodological flaws methodological flaws – –design – –choice of indicators (very few meaningful measures of quality of teaching and learning – –weight among indicators – –reliability of data no true measure of quality no true measure of quality wrongly used as “ one size fits all ” wrongly used as “ one size fits all ” encourage universities to adjust to the ranking criteria encourage universities to adjust to the ranking criteria

outline of the presentation typology of rankings typology of rankings a world of controversies a world of controversies do rankings measure quality? do rankings measure quality? policy implications policy implications

usefulness of rankings? for the Government? for the Government? for the institutions? for the institutions? for the public? for the public?

government use of rankings Pakistan case Pakistan case

government use of rankings Pakistan case Pakistan case –promoting a culture of accurate and transparent information

government use of rankings Pakistan case Pakistan case –promoting a culture of accurate and transparent information –promoting a culture of quality

from the viewpoint of institutions sensitive to factors that affect their rankings (benchmarking) sensitive to factors that affect their rankings (benchmarking) goal setting for strategic planning purposes goal setting for strategic planning purposes forming strategic alliances forming strategic alliances

applying public pressure Provão Provão

applying public pressure Provão Provão France France

applying public pressure Provão Provão France France Colombia Colombia

conclusion: divisive or helpful?

rankings are here to stay useful for prospective students useful in the absence of an established evaluation and/or accreditation system useful for benchmarking, goal- setting and self-improvement purposes useful to conduct a healthy debate on issues and challenges useful to promote a culture of accountability

principles of an appropriate ranking instrument compare similar institutions compare similar institutions better to focus on program than on entire institution better to focus on program than on entire institution better to rank by indicator than wholesale (Germany – Pakistan) better to rank by indicator than wholesale (Germany – Pakistan) better to focus on results rather than inputs (labor market outcomes, publications, patents) better to focus on results rather than inputs (labor market outcomes, publications, patents) better if used for self-improvement purposes better if used for self-improvement purposes better to advertise results publicly than to keep them secret better to advertise results publicly than to keep them secret