共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 218 毫秒
1.
高艳 《中国高等教育评估》2014,(3)
大学排名主要是通过加工处理各大学之间的可比信息,以简单直观的结果反映高校的办学质量和影响力,这已成为大学评价的重要形式与主要手段之一。本文在研究《泰晤士高等教育》世界大学排名、QS世界大学排名、上海交通大学世界大学学术排名等在国内外具有较大影响大学排名的基础上,从多个维度对这三大排名进行全面的比较分析。 相似文献
2.
<正>据美国《高等教育纪事报》2013年4月12日报道,世界大学排名机构的数量持续增加,这些排名机构不断变换新的排名方法和用途,大学排名正转变成一个越来越具争议的领域。欧洲大学协会日前发布了一份名为《世界大学排名及其影响II》的报告,概述世界大学排 相似文献
3.
德国CHE大学排名及其启示 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
从1998年开始,德国高等教育发展中心发布了CHE大学排名,这一排名在国际上引起了广泛的关注.因为在排名的内容上它关注大学教育的质量,在排名的方法上它不对大学做整体的次序排名而是针对单个学科构建了一个没有名次的排行榜,并且以分组的方式呈现各个评价指标的结果.这种独一无二的方法在一定程度上克服了传统大学排名的弊端,对德国高等教育的发展和其他国家的大学排名产生了积极的影响.CHE大学排名的理念与实践都值得我们借鉴. 相似文献
4.
大学排名是近年来高等教育领域的一大热点话题。联合国教科文组织出版了题为《高等教育排名与问责:善用与滥用》的研究报告。报告阐述了世界一流大学建设背景下大学排名的产生与发展。此外,报告对现有大学排名方法逻辑进行解读,分析其优缺点和社会效应。最后,报告通过对大学排名的善用与滥用反思评价标准,强调大学排名要回归大学本质。此份高等教育排名研究报告的出台对世界学术格局的发展产生了重要影响。 相似文献
5.
大学排名是近年来高等教育领域的一大热点话题。联合国教科文组织出版了题为《高等教育排名与问责:善用与滥用》的研究报告。报告阐述了世界一流大学建设背景下大学排名的产生与发展。此外,报告对现有大学排名方法逻辑进行解读,分析其优缺点和社会效应。最后,报告通过对大学排名的善用与滥用反思评价标准,强调大学排名要回归大学本质。此份高等教育排名研究报告的出台对世界学术格局的发展产生了重要影响。 相似文献
6.
虽然《泰晤士报高等教育》的"世界大学排名"是2004年发布的,但是发布大学排名的历史可以追溯到1986年,当时只是发布英国国内的大学学科排名。"世界大学排名"是在英国国内大学排名的基础之上出台的。所以,对英国大学排名历史的梳理应该从1986年开始。"世界大学排名",经历了起步、调整、重大变革等几个阶段,现在终于成为国际高等教育的一个重要品牌。 相似文献
7.
全球化经济背景下的高等教育形成了一个市场,以市场需求为导向。大学排名可以方便高等教育消费者透明、有效地获取高校的信息并进行直观比较。随着知识经济竞争的加剧与全球化发展,大学排名演进成全球性的排名。本文引入目前最为普及的3个全球大学排行榜——上海交通大学"世界大学学术排名"(ARWU)、QS世界大学排名、THE世界大学排名。通过辨析其与高校评估之区别,阐述了大学排名作为"商标"或"品牌"的市场性特点。同时,全球大学排名有利于高等教育的质量保障,但指标设计不当与对"世界一流大学"的盲目追求很可能会对各国高等教育质量的战略发展造成方向性误导与阻碍。 相似文献
8.
刘尧 《上海教育评估研究》2014,3(2):32-36
随着高等教育大众化的到来,大学排行榜越来越受到我国社会大众的关注。面对各式各
样的大学排行榜,人们感到眼花缭乱,社会舆论也大相径庭。事实上,大学排名是建立在大学评价
基础上的排序,既然是评价,其结果受到评价目标、评价目的、评价指标体系、评价方法等诸多因素
的影响,任何因素发生变化都会使结果发生变化。因此,不同排名机构的大学排名结果大相径庭是
在所难免的。对大学这样一个复杂的社会组织,通过几个指标进行排名本身就是有缺陷的。尽管如
此,大学排名作为社会大众认识大学的工具又是必要的。就是说,社会各方面要了解不同排行榜的
侧重点,平心静气地看待大学排行榜。 相似文献
9.
中国大学排名的"是"与"非" 总被引：7，自引：0，他引：7
近几年来 ,不同机构对中国大学的排名着实点燃起了公众对高等教育关注的热情 ,同时也引起了诸多激烈争论 ,甚至出现过海南人大学子状告中国网大的案例。对中国大学排名的争论 ,涉及如何对其进行正确看待的问题 ,也就是要对中国大学排名有一个基本的价值判断。可以肯定的是 ,中国大学排名尤其是民间机构大学排名的出现 ,是我国大学评价制度的一大进步。与官方相比 ,民间机构对大学排名 ,更为客观、公正。因为由官方对大学进行排名 ,无异于让家长评价自己几个孩子哪个更为优秀 ,难免过多掺杂个人的偏爱感情 ,从而使评价显得主观化。众所周知 ,… 相似文献
10.
大学排名在一定程度上反映了高等教育的质量,满足了公众对大学透明度和信息的需求。但同时,大学排名也可能诱使高校趋同发展,产生片面的导向。改进大学排名应明确排名的目的、作用;使用多渠道数据全面评价;将评价指标重心落在产出上;对排名进行分类,使用有差别的指标体系;建立适当的监督或顾问机构。 相似文献
11.
理想的大学排名目的和意义在于,作为服务于公共问责的有益工具,为排名使用者提供关于大学教育质量的可靠信息,同时激励大学提升质量。然而,当前大学排名所采用的大部分指标与院校选择性程度高度相关,为学生提供的大学教育质量信息不充分;且由于大学排名主要是大学教育作为准商品参与市场竞争的产物,指标设计偏重于高等教育对训练人力和发展科研的价值,忽视学生个人发展、教育公平等这些隐蔽但影响深远的社会价值,导致高等教育生态恶化,社会不公加剧。要解决这些问题,＂教育增值＂评价的发展是一个可能的改进途径,但不是根本的解决之道。归根结底,大学排名只是众多评价方式之一,不应也不可能承担质量评价的全部责任。Abstract： The idealistic purpose of university ranking is to encourage the self-improvement of universities as well as providing reliable information to users on higher education quality for public accountability.Nevertheless,most current rankings advocate indices related highly to the academic selectivity of institutions,while having nothing to do with quality of their performances.At the same time,since the rankings are mostly pushed by competition among universities as quasi-merchandise,it was inevitable that some social values of higher education as labor training and research were emphasized more than others such as student individual development and social justice,which are more invisible but influential from a long term.The rankings therefore ruined the ecology of higher education competition and made social injustice more serious.Value-added evaluation might bring some light to the darkness of rankings but not the primary way to solve the problem since it is functioned as one of the many measures in quality assessment. 相似文献
12.
Maru&#x;a Hauptman Komotar 《European Journal of Education》2019,54(2):299-310
Global university rankings are a worldwide trend that emerged in times of the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. Universities worldwide are now striving to become “world‐class” institutions and are constantly aiming to improve their ranking position. Global rankings of universities are thus perceived by many as an ultimate tool for assessing the level of internationalisation at individual higher education institutions. This article first discusses the meaning of and relationship between the globalisation and internationalisation of higher education, as their influence on the emergence of global rankings is undeniable. It then outlines the methodological designs of four main global university rankings which serve as key prerequisites for the subsequent analyses of both the international(‐isation) indicators that these rankings include and of the international ranking initiatives that focus exclusively on the international outlook of higher education institutions. In the concluding discussion, the article reveals that, due to the predominantly quantitative orientation of global university rankings (on the internationalisation of higher education), their results should not be generalised or understood as a means to improve the quality of (internationalisation of) higher education. 相似文献
13.
League tables of universities that measure performance in various ways are now commonplace, with numerous bodies providing their own rankings of how institutions throughout the world are seen to be performing on a range of metrics. This paper uses Lyotard's notion of language games to theorise that universities are regaining some power over being placed on league tables by creating narratives that manipulate their rankings to promote their own strengths. This paper examines the findings of a study involving university responses to global rankings throughout 2016 produced by two major ranking bodies, Times Higher Education and QS Top Universities. The existing literature has established that ranking tables can be used as a vehicle for humiliation and can produce terrors for all those involved. Thus, the significance of this study's findings is in new ways of theorising university responses to appearing on league tables at a time when academia is a high‐stakes activity where institutions’ abilities are measured and reported on at a global scale. 相似文献
14.
Academic quality,league tables,and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems 总被引：5，自引：0，他引：5
The global expansion of access to higher education has increased demand for information on academic quality and has led to the development of university ranking systems or league tables in many countries of the world. A recent UNESCO/CEPES conference on higher education indicators concluded that cross-national research on these ranking systems could make an important contribution to improving the international market for higher education. The comparison and analysis of national university ranking systems can help address a number of important policy questions. First, is there an emerging international consensus on the measurement of academic quality as reflected in these ranking systems? Second, what impact are the different ranking systems having on university and academic behavior in their respective countries? Finally, are there important public interests that are thus far not reflected in these rankings? If so, is there a needed and appropriate role for public policy in the development and distribution of university ranking systems and what might that role be? This paper explores these questions through a comparative analysis of university rankings in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. 相似文献
15.
随着世界各国大学评价机构的兴起,大学排行榜在全球范围内逐渐成为评价高校声誉的重要依据。本文分析了基于当前大学排行榜的高校评价体系存在的问题,以期完善我国高校评价体系。 相似文献
16.
Since the start of the twenty-first century, university rankings have become internationalized. Global rankings have a variety of uses, levels of popularity and rationales and they are here to stay. An examination of the results of the current global ranking reveals that well-reputed world-class universities are amongst the top ranked ones. A major concern for university administrators in many parts of the world is how to use the global rankings wisely in their mid-term and long-term strategic planning for building their institutions into world-class universities. Four major global rankings have been developed: the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the World University Rankings, the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities and the Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the most influential indicators in these global university rankings that will affect the rank mobility of an institution. Based on an analysis of correlation coefficients and K-means clustering, a model of strategic institutional planning for building a world-class university is proposed. 相似文献
17.
朱高风 《湖州师范学院学报》2014,(6):29-34
随着高等教育的成熟和发展,大学排行榜由美国首先产生,并席卷到世界各国。美国、英国、中国等国通过国际间合作或自己的研究都先后开展了大学排名的工作,本文追述世界大学排行榜发展的历史,比较目前最著名的《泰晤士报·高等教育副刊》的THE排行榜和国际高等教育资讯机构Quacquarelli Symonds公司的排行榜的两大世界大学排名指标体系,为我校进行大学排行榜的研究提供参考。 相似文献
18.
余好 《浙江教育学院学报》2012,(4):69-74
随着高等教育大众化的扩展,全球范围内出现各种世界大学排名,世界大学排名逐渐成为许多国家对高等教育机构进行价值评判的一种重要形式,在一定程度上影响各国发展高等教育所采取的战略决策。尽管各大排名在指标的设定上都会考虑科研能力,但由于排名机构的价值判断不同,各种排名具体采用的指标体系有所区别,它们在价值判断上的差异必然带来排名结果的不同。 相似文献
19.
近年来,大学排名备受关注,引发了社会各界对应该如何评价大学的思考。世界大学排名到底有多少？ 他们之间的联系和区别是什么？ 大学排名需要遵循什么基本原则？ 针对这些问题,本文通过梳理国内外各大排行榜的相关信息,对各大排行榜进行评价,使大家能理性看待各大排行榜。 相似文献
20.
In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion. We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good' and meaningful education in the United Kingdom and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels. 相似文献