1. Classification & Ranking in Higher Arts Education New EU developments and the role of ELIA

2. Classification & Ranking Increased interest as a result of: Globalisation Media Logic (HE as a global market) (presenting yourself) Increase in student numbers (elite > mass universities) Fee structures (from government funding to private) Transparency (the impact society)

3. Classification & Ranking Current ranking systems Global institutional rankings: THES, Shanghai, QS, Leiden Field base rankings: CHE Other global systems: webometrics, 4icu, Observatory, Mines ParisTech National rankings EU Initiatives: U-Map, U-Multirank

4. Classification & Ranking Criticism against ranking systems On ‘whole institutions’ (ignoring internal variance) Concentration on ‘traditional’ research productivity and impact Focus on ‘comprehensive research universities’ Aggregates performance into composite overall indicators Bias against the arts, humanities and social sciences Constructed ‘league table’ Cultural and language biases

5. Classification & Ranking European Higher Education Area Aim: Increasing diversity and transparency Classification and mapping: Institutional Profiles 2005; Mapping Diversity 2008; Mapping the Higher Education Landscape 2009; U-Map, late 2009. Used by Estonia and Portugal nationally; Norway has a similar system U-Multirank: EU versus the universities Commission wants a European dimension E4 (EURASHE, ENQA, EUA, ESU) oppose that

6. Classification & Ranking U-Map Different levels of comparison Teaching and learning profile Degree level focus Range of subjects Orientation of degrees Expenditure on teaching Involvement in knowledge exchange Start-up firms Patent applications filed Cultural activities Income knowledge exchange Student profile Mature students Part-time students Distance learning students Size of student body International orientation Foreign students Incoming exchange students Outgoing exchange students International staff % International income Research involvement Peer reviewed publications Doctorate production Expenditure on research Regional engagement Graduates in region Students from region Regional income sources

7. Classification & Ranking U-Map Different levels of comparison

8. Classification & Ranking U-Map Problems The U-map team presented a new definition on the two dimensions Research and Knowledge Transfer Artistic research was regarded as Knowledge Transfer This was for pragmatic reason : concerts and exhibitions could be part of Knowledge Transfer ELIA & AEC convinced them to change it back Imagine what would happen if art schools, institutions, departments would be mapped as no research

9. Classification & Ranking U-Multirank Five dimensions: Teaching & LearningInternational orientation ResearchRegional engagement Knowledge Transfer[Student profile is out] Provide data but do not use league tables: user driven Feasibility test phase 2010-2011 157 institutions (including ELIA members) involved 6770 students answering questionnaires

10. Classification & Ranking U-Multirank The test phase was successful but some of the indicators were evaluated as ”problematic” One of the worst was Art related outputs in the dimension Ranking: unclear concept, data not available Next phase: Communication September 2011: launch U-Multirank First results in 2013 ELIA will follow this development very close