xidp.com
Your independent source on international education
developments
 "It is all about ‘economic power’ and how the education income is distributed around the world..." Marcelo for hire Would your institution like a consultation with leading international xidp commentator and analyst, Marcelo Follari? Either way find out what your competition now has access to.
|
|
Beware the biases in Uni rankingsWe all love rankings. They are good fun. As a market researcher and my love for numbers I have always produced my own rankings. For example, I tend to rank my ten preferred movies or the 10 best songs that ‘changed my life’ (actually more than 10!). These rankings are subjective based on my preferences. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of education rankings of all kinds. All of them tend to be based on the idea of an ‘objective analytical construction’ that we all have to follow. They would be OK if we would take them as simple academic exercise. However, rankings have become the path that all marketers, education analysts and policy makers follow to evaluate what it is not easily perceived. Even worse, those rankings are influencing decisions of all sorts: where to study, where to allocate funds, where to rationalise costs, where to teach and so on. They have become – in economic jargon – an ‘externality’ that influences people’s lives. Moreover, - and unfortunately - they have become the preferred analysis by governments to determine how good or bad education institutions are. For those who at certain stage of our careers had the chance to evaluate ‘educational quality’, they realize it is a big ask, most of the time unsuccessful. We can evaluate aspects of education delivery, subjective student’s perceptions – again – but not the concept of ‘quality of education’. Let’s consider the recent example of the ‘Academic Ranking of World Universities’ produced by the Jiao Tang University in Shanghai. They have become the poster child of education rankings. Their methodology is based on four attributes:
The first – quality of education- is based on how many Nobel prizes have won the alumni of institutions. The second – quality of faculty – is based on staff on an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Highly cited researchers in a wide range of broad subjects. The third is based on articles published in Nature and Science. Nobel Prizes are generally backed with huge public and private funds to conduct their research. It is fair to say that not all universities around the world have access to these funds – I would say it is quite the opposite -. This can happen in few parts of the world for obvious economic reasons. To put it plainly, there are economic and sociological circumstances that result in some institutions to receive more funds than others. It is all about ‘economic power’ and how the education income is distributed around the world. The issue of citation is also biased. Not every knowledge contribution appears in journals. Generally, the participation in journals is limited to academic and scientific personnel that aspire to some global recognition. Not all the science graduates fall into that category. I would say again that represents the minority of them. Consider also that most of the sources of information are published in just one language: English. So the ranking is giving more importance to the academic exchange of ideas in the English-speaking world. How about the research published in Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, French, Italian, German languages to name a few? So I argue that rankings are a deceptive bases for education policies and can lead to serious policy misunderstandings. The main objective of an education policy should not be allocating funds based on some sort of a ‘rat race’ about which institution is on top or the bottom of the rankings. It is, in the end and simply, about generating a cultural and intellectual ‘change’ in those who decide to study to improve theirs and other lives and can benefit the society as a whole…and that cannot be measured. 21 September 2005 Marcelo Follari |
|
Marcelo's ArchivesBeyond India and China Are there risks in focusing your marketing on just the two largest ones? Downsides Losers and Winners Nowadays, the industry is evaluating the possibilities for expansion into the same emerging markets that IDP left behind (Europe, the Americas and Africa), in the face of increased competition in the Asian region. Postcards from South
America From Australia and the rest of the Asia Pacific region,
there will be an increasing need to understand how to do business in
South America, and to analyse different market segments.
Market research and international
education 2005: The Challenges Ahead
The 'happy years' of growth are over and they will seriously impact
on the university business. What now? Blame it on the dollar? "...If you want to stay in the international education field,
this website is becoming a mandatory reference for the industry."
|