共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
欧盟“多维度全球大学排名”述评 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
出于对大学排名作用的肯定和对现有排名的不满,欧盟发布并资助了由"高等教育和研究绩效评估联盟"承担的"多维度全球大学排名"项目。"高等教育和研究绩效评估联盟"提出了12条设计原则,构建了一个概念框架,并分四个阶段设计出指标体系。与现有排名相比,该排名的总体思想更为完美地体现了大学排名的本质要求,但该排名也面临着院校参与意愿的考验等问题。 相似文献
2.
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
3.
大学排名已成为一种全球性现象,世界上几乎所有高等教育规模较大的国家都有大学排名存在。由于排名从宏观上提供了大学问可比的、有时甚至是关键的信息,在一定程度上满足了外界和大学自身了解大学的需求,因此能够长期存在并产生巨大影响。本文以上海交通大学高等教育研究所发布的"世界大学学术排名"为案例,分析了大学排名活动在经济全球化和高等教育国际化背景下所发挥的作用和产生的影响. 相似文献
4.
Andrejs Rauhvargers 《European Journal of Education》2014,49(1):29-44
This article is based on the analysis of the changes in global university rankings and the new ‘products’ based on rankings data in the period since mid-2011. It is a summary and continuation of the European University Association (EUA)-commissioned report ‘Global University Rankings Their Impact, Report II’ which was launched in April 2013. It covers the changes in the ranking methodologies which have been the most visible in the CWTS Leiden Ranking and Webometrics and which have replaced some indicators with newly designed ones. Changes have been made in other rankings as well, but they are less visible. A new U21 ranking was launched in 2012. It is an attempt to rank national higher education systems rather than individual universities. New rankings by conventional ranking providers have demonstrated that in reputation rankings or reputation indicators the scores drop even more sharply than in the most élitist rankings and therefore can be used for even narrower groups of universities. Several ranking providers have started their own data collections and combine ranking data with the data from the newly established data collections and use them for several multi-indicator classifications or profiling tools. QS has been most productive and has added not only classification and profiling tools, but has also launched a ranking of student cities, and ‘stars’ that universities can obtain. Generally, the rankings’ impact is growing. Let us see where it will bring us. At the same time, some rankings providers have changed language and explain the biases, flaws and misunderstandings created through misuse of rankings or using ranking indicators without proper knowledge. 相似文献
5.
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
6.
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
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.
2005-2015年,台湾大学入选台湾地区“迈向顶尖大学(一流大学)计划”两期。通过对台湾大学建设一流大学的目标、行动与效果进行个案分析,发现台湾大学创建一流大学目标明确、措施有力,纵向比较取得了长足的进步,但在大学排行榜的相对位置却呈现下降的趋势,与预期目标形成反差。台湾大学建设“一流大学”的个案解构说明:“一流大学”建设计划具有积极意义,可以有效地集聚资源促进大学综合水平快速提升;但对排行榜的相对位置变化要有理性的看待,排行榜只是“一流大学”建设成效评价的参考,不能以排行榜位置变化作为“一流大学”建设成效的唯一标准。我们应当允许高校保留自身特色并不断地自我超越,这与“中国特色”“世界一流”的评价理念是一致的。 相似文献
9.
理工科高校社科学报该采取什么样的办刊方针,具备什么特色,是一个值得认真、深入探讨的问题。理工科高校社科学报除了服务于所在学校的学科建设外,还应在特色方面下功夫。在诸多特色中,综合性理应成为理工科高校社科学报的着眼点和重心所在。 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.
中国大学排名缘起于大学的理论研究与高等教育实践的需要。科学计量学作为学科理论研究在中国的兴起,为大学排名奠定了理论基础;中国当代高等教育发展的实践需要,为大学排名提供了崭新课题和原生动力。同时,一批勇于研究与实践的敢于担当的学者涌现,使大学排名破土而出,从而呈现了异彩纷呈、特色各见的中国大学排名榜——校友会榜、武书连榜、软科榜和中评榜等。中国大学排名从产生到成熟表现出与时俱进的峥嵘历程、评价指标的相融相鉴以及各领风骚的独特定位等发展态势。 相似文献
12.
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
13.
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
14.
大学如何应对大学排行榜 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
大学排行榜受到了广泛的关注。一方面,那些排行榜都认为自己在向公众提供公共说明责任与增加透明度方面做出了贡献;另一方面,他们又因其方法论上的缺陷或对信息收集的偏好而受到指责。因此,大学应监测大学排行榜以及社会公布的各个大学的信息,通过大学排行榜审视自身存在的结构性问题,认识大学自身不同于其他院校的独特性。 相似文献
15.
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
16.
Gero Lenhardt Robert D Reisz PD Dr Manfred Stock 《Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft》2008,11(4):559-576
The system of higher education in the USA comprises the undergraduate programs of the colleges and the graduate programs in research universities. This distinction has no equivalent in Germany. The idea of elite education is connected exclusively with the colleges. Its meaning and functions are demonstrated with an analysis of the criteria which are used for the ranking of higher education institutions. The ranking of the colleges is addressed to the students and is based on indicators, which give expression above all to the educational priorities of the students and the alumni. The ranking of the graduate programs focuses on specific academic programs and is addressed to the members of the various academic fields and to their prospective students. A few rankings cover whole educational institutions and serve to inform the higher educational management. We use these data to identity the specifics of outstanding research universities and their role in American higher education. 相似文献
17.
18.
大学排名自产生以来一直以来备受诟病,备受争议的背后实质上反映出社会公众在对待大学排名方面所体现出的一元、片面的认识,并没有进行充分且辩证的思考。实际上大学排名无论是对社会还是高校的发展,都能够产生一定的积极作用。文章采用二维象限分析法,建构新的研究模型,将大学排名的影响进行详细的整理与归类,归纳出大学排名对两大主体:大学与社会所带来的积极、消极作用,如大学排名能够促进大学管理制度的改革与完善、大学排名对于不同群体的学生选择大学就读具有差异性等。因此,使用二维象限分析法对大学排名的影响进行逐一的分析,有利于从大学与社会的角度打破社会公众对大学排名原有的刻板印象,从而全面地认识大学排名的影响。 相似文献
19.
符号资本在大学社会评价中的作用探析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
大学社会评价是高等教育评价体系中重要的一环,它可以满足政府之外社会上其他利益相关者对高校的认知需要.目前,由于诸多的大学排行榜(大学社会评价的主要表现形式)无视大学的符号资本,陷入了纯粹"数字游戏"的误区.然而,符号资本却在大学社会评价体系中有着极为重要的作用,它不但是大学社会评价与大学学科评估界分的基础,更是大学社会评价合法性、公信力的保障;它能更好地解决不同类型大学之间的比较,更能公允地评价特色大学和不同规模的大学.理解符号资本在大学社会评价中的作用,有利于帮助大学排名走出误区,促进大学社会评价发展. 相似文献
20.
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