1. Ranking Tertiary Education Systems Jamil Salmi Astana 15 June 2009

2. Benchmarking Tertiary Education Systems Jamil Salmi Astana 15 June 2009

3. 3

4. 4 the power of rankings public debate –Malaysia –France –Brazil

5. 5 institutional behavior positive reactions –increased data-based decision making –improvements in teaching and learning practices –mergers or institutional collaboration

6. 6 institutional behavior (II) negative reactions –less interest for low-income and minority students –distorted resource allocation to favor research over teaching –neglect of established institutional research practices –managing to the rankings (cheating?)

7. 7 outline of the presentation world-class university or world-class tertiary education system? rankings of university systems benchmarking tertiary education systems

8. 8 the search for excellence my university is… more world-class than yours

9. 9 the WCU disease governments institutions –strategic efforts –lobbying for resource concentration

10. 10

11. 11 the WCU disease governments institutions World Bank

13. 13 how do you recognize a world-class university? everyone wants one no one knows what it is no one knows how to get one Philip G. Altbach

14. 14

15. 15 reality check well-performing countries without world- class universities –and vice-versa

16. 16 top 50 universities

17. comparison of rankings WEFWB K4DSJTU USADenmarkUS (1) SwitzerlandSwedenUK (4) DenmarkFinlandJapan (19) SwedenNetherlandsSwitzerland (24) SingaporeNorwayCanada (24) FinlandCanadaFrance (42) GermanySwitzerlandDenmark (45) NetherlandsUKNetherlands (47) JapanUSASweden (51) CanadaAustraliaGermany (55) 17

18. 18 reality check well-performing countries without world- class universities time dimension of alignment? –emerging economies vs. mature economies country size –Harvard vs. Canada

19. 19 reality check institutional differentiation –different types of institutions for meeting various learning and training needs –regional engagement –technology transfer through human capital formation

20. 20

21. 21 evolution of Nokia income

22. 22 outline of the presentation world-class university or world-class tertiary education system? rankings of university systems

23. 23 SJTU ranking (2008)

24. adjusting for size 24

25. University World News 25

26. SJTU 26

27. QS SAFE National System Strength Ranking US UK Australia Germany Canada Japan France Netherlands South Korea Sweden number & ranking access to top U flagship U investment 27

28. 28

29. Lisbon Council 29 ranking of university systems (17 OECD countries) beyond research multi-dimensional (access and completion, labor market outcomes, lifelong learning, responsiveness, ability to attract foreign students) pioneer work

30. limitations face same methodological questions as university rankings –focus on universities –research bias –composite index with arbitrary weights –statistical robustness –choice of indicators 30

31. 31 outline of the presentation world-class university or world-class tertiary education system? rankings of university systems benchmarking tertiary education systems

32. 32 cross-country comparisons help increase knowledge is this flower big or small? it depends on the size of neighboring flowers

33. 33 multi-dimension comparisons enriches the diagnosis how does this flower compare with the others? wider but shorter

34. purpose improving performance –through comparisons competitors good practices –diagnosis (identification of areas for improvement) –definition of specific corrective interventions 34

35. 35 purpose (II) need to understand the determinants of performance –no consensus on what countries should do to improve their performance –wide variations in system performance with similar funding levels and common country characteristics

36. 36 Brazil and Chile public spending on tertiary education =.8% and.3% of GDP respectively enrollment rates are 24% and 38% respectively

37. 37 why is a comprehensive benchmarking tool important? performance is more than –building world-class universities –enrolling students (equity and quality agenda) learning & labor market outcomes linked to the totality of the education experience

38. 38 approach elaborating a theoretical framework selecting indicators finding / generating the data analysis –diagnosis (areas for improvement) –identification of possible solutions

39. 39 preliminary step defining a system –US –EU –small states

40. 40 elaborating the theoretical framework distinction between performance and health of system –how good are the systems actual outcomes? –does it operate under conditions known to lead to high performance? definition of outcomes / outputs / results identification of determinants and causality relationships –informed by empirical evidence

41. 41 results framework research production technology transfer quality and relevance of education and training –labor market outcomes –measuring learning outcomes

42. 42 results framework equity values and behaviors social and cultural engagement

43. determinants (inputs and processes) access and equity (enrollment, institutional diversification, pathways) quality and relevance (standards, teaching and learning, research, local engagement) 43

44. determinants (inputs and processes) sustainable financing (resource mobilization, allocation, efficient use) capacity to improve (system and institutional governance) 44

45. 45 indicators and data selecting and defining the right indicators finding comparable and reliable data (statistical sources and surveys) –objective –verifiable

46. 46

47. 47 Benchmarking Tertiary Education Upgrade your knowledge – measure, assess and compare your universities!

48. 48 conclusions exploratory work different type of analysis –who? governments and donors –what: system lens vs. institutional multi-dimensional

49. 49 main challenges ahead defining and measuring multiplicity of outputs finding reliable data linking results and causes to be able to take action