共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
评价对大学的发展具有积极作用。所谓大学评价排名化,主要指排名成为一些大学评价结果的唯一表现形式,参与大学排名的机构愈来愈多,大学排名涉及的领域愈来愈广。值得思考的问题是,这么多的大学排名是否必要?大学排名的评价指标是否合理?所谓大学评价国际化,主要指21世纪之后流行的世界大学排名的实质是评价机构用一个尺度或者说一个国际性的尺度去评价不同国家的大学。四大排行榜已经对一些国家政府的高等教育政策、众多大学的办学理念、方向和行为、普通大众对高等教育的认识等产生了不可低估的影响。世界大学排名评价的科研偏好、英语偏好、理科偏好的特征是值得认真关注的。 相似文献
2.
3.
William Yat Wai Lo 《比较教育学》2011,47(2):209-222
The purpose of this article is to analyse the nature of the global hegemonies in higher education. While anti‐colonial thinkers describe the dominance of the Western paradigm as an oppression of indigenous culture and knowledge and as neo‐colonialism in higher education, their arguments lead to such questions as how much self‐determination do non‐Western countries have? On what basis can the colonised resist the coloniser? To what extent are non‐Western nations aware of the Western hegemony? To answer these questions, this article uses the concept of soft power to interrogate how global hegemonies are manifested in higher education agendas. With reference to the pursuit of a world‐class status in higher education in East Asia, it discusses how the international inequality in higher education is viewed from the anti‐colonial perspective in the existing literature. The article then proposes the soft‐power perspective as an alternative way to explain why non‐Western countries are willing to follow the Anglo‐American paradigm to develop their higher education systems. Extending this analysis, the article argues that the emerging global university rankings are important resources of soft power that have the potential, as a governance tool, to reshape the global higher education landscape. 相似文献
4.
叶林 《浙江教育学院学报》2011,(6):76-79,84
大学排行榜诞生于20世纪80年代,目前已经发展成为考生及家长择校的重要信息源,当今大学验证其学术地位不可忽视的参考源,更是政府政策调控的依据和工具。它可分为综合排行榜、专业排行榜和特色排行榜,不同的排行方式会产生不同的排行结果。尊重顾客、加强国际间的合作、开发既具有可比性又符合国情的多元评估指标将是未来大学排行榜的必然趋势。 相似文献
5.
大学排名的产生、演化及其治理，有其特定的市场逻辑。出于政府、高校以及社会公众在大学综合信息占有上的非对称性，这些利益相关者演化为大学排名的首要需求者。当社会过分依赖排名识别高校办学水平信息、政府更多依据排名结果配置高等教育资源时，大学排行榜逐步完成了“知识—物品—商品”的属性转变，大学排名也成了既受追捧又受诟病的商品生产，迫使政府和公众在大学排名上做出无奈化决策和模糊化认同，高校在大学排名中予以选择性参与。要求得大学排名由“乱”向“治”的转变，需要在更好发挥政府作用的基础上，以市场规律为核心优化大学排名资源配置，统合行业自律和政府引导，实施“排名机构成长专业化”和“高等教育治理现代化”的统筹发力。 相似文献
6.
Valentina Goglio 《Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management》2016,38(2):212-226
In roughly a decade, university rankings gained the foreground in the policy arena for higher education and their influence is not going to decrease. However, several methodological shortcomings and warnings about the unintended consequences for national higher education systems have been raised. Against this background, this paper stresses that the individual recipients of information contained in university rankings are currently overlooked. Indeed, university rankings are addressed to a generic recipient, but actually, there are multiple audiences for rankings, and each of these audiences has different needs and each one attributes a different value to information attached to rankings. Referring to a theoretical tool borrowed from bioethics, this paper highlights that the ranking game involves a variety of recipients and that the current setting of the ranking panorama leaves room for gaps to emerge. 相似文献
7.
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
8.
Ellen Hazelkorn 《European Journal of Education》2014,49(1):12-28
Ten years after the first global rankings appeared, it is clear that they have had an extraordinary impact on higher education. While there are fundamental questions about whether rankings measure either quality or what's meaningful, they have succeeded in exposing higher education to international comparison. More so, because of the important role higher education plays as a driver of economic development, rankings have exposed both an information deficit and national competitiveness. Accordingly, both nations and institutions have sought to maximise their position vis-á-vis global rankings with positive and perverse effects. Their legacy is evident in the way rankings have become an implicit — and often explicit – reference point for policymaking and higher education decision-making, and have reinforced an evaluative state's over-reliance on quantitative indicators to measure quality. They are embedded in popular discourse, and have informed the behaviour of many stakeholders, within and outside the academy. This paper reflects on three inter-related issues; i) considers the way rankings have heightened policy and investment interest in higher education, ii) discusses whether the modifications to rankings have resolved some of the questions about what they measure, and iii) looks at how rankings have influenced stakeholder behaviour. Finally, the paper reflects on what we have learned and some outstanding issues. 相似文献
9.
William Yat Wai Lo 《Globalisation, Societies & Education》2013,11(4):459-478
This paper argues that global university rankings can be understood as a mechanism upholding Taiwan's interests in light of cross-national analysis of university ranking and recent discussion on regionalisation of higher education in Asia. To draw an analytical framework, it begins by delineating a conceptualisation of university ranking, in which ranking exercises are seen as a form of institutions in the globalised field of education politics and policy. In anticipation of the emergence of the Greater China higher education region, the paper suggests that global university ranking can be used as a zoning technology to form an imaginary line of cultural and academic sovereignty, and to affect university strategies and government policies. This analysis not only explains how global university rankings can be used to uphold interests of Taiwan's higher education, but also sheds light on the way to constitute subjectivity in the process of regionalisation of worldwide higher education. 相似文献
10.
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
11.
This article contributes to the emerging theoretical construct of what has been called ‘transnational academic capitalism’, characterised by the blurring of traditional boundaries between public, private, local, regional and international, and between market-driven and critically transformative higher education visions. Here we examine how these issues are reflected in higher education policy in the Arab Gulf, asking: what kinds of capital are being constructed and traded? By and for whom? What is the relationship between higher education competition, governance and the public good? We find contradictory trends, which we see as strategic ambivalence pointing to country-specific readings of similar regional markets and attempts to hedge bets between rival forms of apparent capital. The exploration offers a counterpoint to more widely cited examples, hereby helping to shape new paradigmatic ‘glocalised’ understandings of this field. 相似文献
12.
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
13.
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
14.
Marguerite Clarke 《Higher Education in Europe》2005,30(2):183-197
This article describes two recent efforts to rank the quality of higher education institutions in Australia and New Zealand. After a brief discussion of goals, methods, and results, the author evaluates each ranking using the following questions: Does this methodological approach achieve its objective? Can other countries use the methodology by extension? What can we learn about a country's higher education system using this approach? The aim is to provide readers with a framework for thinking critically about rankings, and about the role they might play in measuring and influencing higher education quality on a global scale. 相似文献
15.
The role of universities as the engines of knowledge-based economies drives global internationalisation of higher education. This contributes to a competitive environment where higher education rankings indicate market value. Even though rankings are influential and are used a lot, ranking systems have been heavily critiqued. One of the problems is that there are few if any external checks on how rankings are created. The purpose of the study on which this article reports was to evaluate ranking systems. Within the scope of the study, we have sought to reveal to what extent current ranking systems comply with the Berlin Principles—prepared to create certain rules for rankings, and to ensure that rankings represent quality. A document analysis of publicly available documents online was carried out together with a review of printed and electronic publications on ranking systems. An evaluation form was prepared and used in this study for field experts to fill in. Findings show that ranking systems comply with the Berlin Principles in terms of methodology, transparency, and acceptability at a level that ranges from moderate to low. Overall, rankings do not consider differences in higher education and are not transparent about the processes by which rankings are developed. Rankings should for this reason be interpreted carefully and methodological weaknesses of rankings that can lead to false inferences should be recognised. 相似文献
16.
In just a decade, the international university rankings have become dominant measures of institutional performance for policy-makers worldwide. Bolstered by the façade of scientific neutrality, these classification systems have reinforced the hegemonic model of higher education – that of the elite, Anglo-Saxon research university – on a global scale. The process is a manifestation of what Bourdieu and Wacquant have termed US “cultural imperialism.” However, the rankings paradigm is facing growing criticism and resistance, particularly in regions such as Latin America, where the systems are seen as forcing institutions into a costly and high-stakes “academic arms race” at the expense of more pressing development priorities. That position, expressed at the recent UNESCO conferences in Buenos Aires, Paris, and Mexico City, shows the degree to which the rankings have become a fundamental element in the contest for cultural hegemony, waged through the prism of higher education. 相似文献
17.
世界各国的教育系统都面临着诸多平衡发展的问题,而且这些挑战在全球化的作用下变得愈加严峻。中国的情况尤其如此。各国所面临的主要挑战包括:实现公平、质量与效率的平衡;通过提供公共资源和加强监管促进私立教育的发展;实现院校自治、学术自由与公共问责的平衡;实现教育系统工具与内在目的和目标的和谐统一;学习借鉴国外优秀经验与发挥本国教育制度和传统的历史优势。在考察上述这些重要政策议题时,我们必须明确以下一些问题:教育改革要实现什么样的目标?谁发起改革以及谁从中受益? 相似文献
18.
Graham Wise Ivan Carrazco Montalvo 《Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management》2018,40(4):342-358
A public university was established in 2014 as a cornerstone of Ecuador’s sweeping higher education reforms. Four years later, Universidad Regional Amazónica Ikiam had developed internationally benchmarked teaching, research and community service missions within the Ecuadorian Amazon. The creation of Ikiam occurred during a period of broad international discourse on the importance to universities of academic excellence, innovation system impact, and regional relevance. This case study tests whether a top-down state-driven development model can establish a university on principles of excellence, impact and relevance. The creation of Ikiam is analysed qualitatively and the results are discussed in context with national and international policy settings for higher education and innovation. This study provides insights for low and middle-income countries to strengthen higher education and innovation systems through university creation. Internationally it provides practical insights for university master planning taskforces to build organisational strength and distinctiveness through excellence, impact and relevance. 相似文献
19.
澳大利亚是高等教育产业化发展的典型,国际教育产业为其带来了巨额的经济收益。在产业化进程中,澳大利亚高校对于国际学生的依赖程度不断增加。自道金斯改革以来,澳大利亚高等教育系统被分化为一个高度管制的国内学生市场和自由放任的国际学生市场,在公共经费匮乏和大学排名的压力下,扩张国际教育产业成为大学经济理性下的必然选择。然而对教育经济价值的强调和市场效率的过分倚重,引发了舆论对教育公平、教学质量、教育目的多方面的质疑,也导致一场高等教育公共性的危机。 相似文献
20.
Hong Kong and Singapore were former British colonies, have a predominant Chinese population and value. They began to develop quickly in the late 1960s, become financial hubs of the world in the 21st century. This paper reviews the tertiary education development of the two cities, particularly on the perspective of university rankings. It first elaborates about the emergence of university rankings, and the reason why it becomes a growing exercise, and who would be the benefactors of these exercises. Then it examines the performance of universities of the two cities in the international university ranking systems, makes a general assessment about the relative merits of the higher education systems in both cities. The paper requests ranking comparisons on the detailed items rather than just the sums, and argues that universities in the two cities are on par. 相似文献