Rankings and Quality Assurance: Do Rankings Measure Quality? : Policy Brief. Number 4 / Ellen Hazelkorn.
Rankings work by comparing higher education institutions (HEIs) using a range of indicators, which are usually weighted according to priority. Rankings are used to inform student choice and stakeholder opinion, and to assess the performance of scientific-scholarly research. Research has shown that s...
Saved in:
| Online Access: |
Full Text (via ERIC) |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Corporate Author: | |
| Format: | eBook |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[Place of publication not identified] :
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
2015.
|
| Subjects: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a22000002u 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | b11019687 | ||
| 003 | CoU | ||
| 005 | 20200512140033.3 | ||
| 006 | m o d f | ||
| 007 | cr ||||||||||| | ||
| 008 | 150101s2015 xx |||| ot ||| | eng d | ||
| 035 | |a (ERIC)ed598706 | ||
| 035 | |a (MvI) 5O000000577791 | ||
| 040 | |a ericd |b eng |c MvI |d MvI | ||
| 099 | |a ED598706 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hazelkorn, Ellen. | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Rankings and Quality Assurance: Do Rankings Measure Quality? : |b Policy Brief. Number 4 / |c Ellen Hazelkorn. |
| 264 | 1 | |a [Place of publication not identified] : |b Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, |c 2015. | |
| 300 | |a 1 online resource (2 pages) | ||
| 336 | |a text |b txt |2 rdacontent. | ||
| 337 | |a computer |b c |2 rdamedia. | ||
| 338 | |a online resource |b cr |2 rdacarrier. | ||
| 500 | |a Availability: CHEA International Quality Group. Available from: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. One Dupont Circle Suite 510, Washington, DC 20016. Tel: 202-955-6126; Fax: 202-955-6129; e-mail: chea@chea.org; Web site: https://www.chea.org/about-ciqg. |5 ericd. | ||
| 500 | |a Abstractor: ERIC. |5 ericd. | ||
| 500 | |a Educational level discussed: Higher Education. | ||
| 500 | |a Educational level discussed: Postsecondary Education. | ||
| 516 | |a Text (Reports, Descriptive) | ||
| 520 | |a Rankings work by comparing higher education institutions (HEIs) using a range of indicators, which are usually weighted according to priority. Rankings are used to inform student choice and stakeholder opinion, and to assess the performance of scientific-scholarly research. Research has shown that students, public opinion and government are the biggest users of rankings. For a government, doing well in rankings can heighten a country's status, and help attract foreign-direct investment and talented students and professionals. Because of these consequences, rankings have become inculcated into higher education strategic decision-making and institutional research. While rankings are widely used they are also broadly critiqued. One of the main criticisms is that rankings use the same set of indicators to measure HEIs operating in very different national settings and meeting a diverse set of needs. This undermines mission distinctiveness, ignores diversity amongst the student cohort, and promotes a single model of higher education excellence. Another criticism is that rankings are a hierarchical system, signalling some HEIs or disciplines are more important than others, and focus too narrowly on elite universities and research. Academic quality however, is not easily reduced to measures of quantification. Like it or not, rankings have succeeded in drawing attention to how HEIs are assessed and what these assessments mean in terms of quality. The depth of the global economic crisis has focused attention on the capacity of HEIs to meet the needs of national economies, and to respond to concerns about graduate employability and affordability. Alternatives such as "U-Multirank" and "U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems" embrace a greater diversity of HEIs, and look at the over all capacity of higher education to bring benefit to society. On-line country-level profiling tools are being developed to provide quick comparative data on university performance and productivity. In the United States, the "Postsecondary Institution Rating System" (PIRS) aims to link access, affordability and outcomes. In the early days, the emphasis was on quality assurance and student choice; today, the ground is shifting between autonomy and accountability, and between steering and regulation. In response, two actions are essential: (1) Higher education should become more actively engaged in the global conversation about quality, and identify meaningful measures which can demonstrate value and contribution; and (2) Higher Education, along with key stakeholders, should agree upon a common international database to be held by a not-for-profit international organisation. | ||
| 524 | |a Council for Higher Education Accreditation. |2 ericd. | ||
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Quality Assurance. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Reputation. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Measurement. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Global Approach. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Educational Quality. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Commercialization. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Universities. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a College Choice. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Institutional Autonomy. |2 ericd. |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Educational Indicators. |2 ericd. |
| 710 | 2 | |a Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) International Quality Group (CIQG) | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598706.pdf |z Full Text (via ERIC) |
| 907 | |a .b110196879 |b 05-21-20 |c 05-21-20 | ||
| 998 | |a web |b 05-21-20 |c f |d m |e - |f eng |g xx |h 0 |i 0 | ||
| 956 | |a ERIC | ||
| 999 | f | f | |i 457d016b-9342-5f31-a20b-307e310598ee |s fdcb677c-f291-51d1-a29a-9bcedfb30323 |