Ranking Scheme and Greek Public Universities

Transcription

1 Ranking Scheme and Greek Public Universities Theodore Chadjipadelis, Department of Political Science Antigoni Papadimitriou, Departments of Economics Aristotle University Thessaloniki - Greece chadji@polsci.auth.gr, antigoni@econ.auth.gr

2 Contents Introduction University Rankings Literature review 72 performance indicators from van Dyke s (2005) study

3 Contents (2) Students' Preferences A.U.TH. s Indices Statistical Analysis

4 Contents (3) The issues in the Universities everyday life Evaluation and Satisfaction Services of insufficient quality Alumni needs The opinion of Stakeholders Ranking Table Discussion-Conclusions

5 AUTH s The University established a research unit under the name of. This university covers most the undergraduate programs of studies that are offered in Greece. By using this research we are evaluating all the entrance criteria, student s preferences, as well as criteria from students regarding their academic studies. We are simultaneously evaluating the degree of information students have regarding their department of study, the sources of such information, as well as their evaluation regarding the knowledge and skills they received form the university. We also evaluated the department infrastructure and human resources as well as the university s administration services.

6 Students Choise

7 Studying this subject

8 It is important

9 Chances

10 Believes

11 Satisfaction

12

13

14 Choise

15 Beliefs

16 Importance

17 Chances

18 Satisfaction

19 Satisfaction

20 Services of insufficient quality

21 Alumni needs

22 Table 15. Performance indicators (N van Dyke), proposed measurements, source, appropriateness, Usher & Savino approach performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) Quality of academic staff Research: Publications Citations Conference Presentations Research Income Research Grants Research Performance measurement (proposed) Importance of teachers reputation importance of research reputation mean number of published papers (per person) mean number of citations (per person) mean number of presented papers (per person) mean income from research programs (per person) mean revenues from research programs (per person) ratio of approved projects to submitted projects availability (source) (survey) (survey) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino research needed research research needed research research needed research Research committee learning inputsstaff Research committee research Research committee research

23 Table 15. (2) performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Prestige: importance of departments reputation Observat ory (survey) Memberships in academies Number of dept. staff appointed in the board of scientific or administrative bodies research needed NO, according to Greek tradition research Significant faculties awards No of National awards (per person) research needed NO, according to Greek tradition research Academic degrees held Academic degrees held Defined by Law NO, PhD needed learning inputsstaff Teaching quality importance of teaching Observat ory (survey) learning inputsstaff

24 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Other academic staff measures: Proportion of full time faculty Undergraduate classes taught by tenure or tenure-track professors Quality of incoming students: Score of national entrance exam/ high school performance Minimum cut-off scores required for entry University acceptance rate/demand for places Geographic diversity Proportion of full time faculty Defined by Law Proportion of positions held by nonpermanent staff Administration Due to Greek entrance system not applicable Minimum score Applicants preference No of international students Ministry of Education (survey) NO, 96% full time faculty members Ministry of Education NO, 1,2% learning inputsstaff learning inputsstaff beginning characteristics beginning characteristics beginning characteristics beginning characteristics

25 Quality of Undergraduate Programs: Satisfaction from curriculum (survey) Degree classification (Honors, etc) All degrees are of equal importance NO learning output National academic awards won by students Graduates who go on to get PhDs/ enroll I further study Graduation/retention/attrition rate Unemployment rate of graduates Average starting salary Student-faculty contact Contact between students Due to Greek tradition not applicable NO LI-resources ποσοστό µεταπτυχιακών φοιτητών σε σχέση µε προπτυχιακούς research needed final outcomes Graduation/retention/attrition rate, 69%, 16% learning output unemployment rate Defined by law satisfaction from student-faculty contact satisfaction from contact between students Greek Statistical Office final outcomes Greek Statistical Office NO final outcomes (survey) (survey) learning inputsstaff Value-added score proportion of graduates within N+2 years (N: minimum years for degree) learning output

26 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Quality of Graduates programs: Satisfaction from curriculum (survey) MAs/PhDs awarded Graduation/retention/attrition rate learning output International students Preparation for post degree career Other students measures: Pas/Fail rate on professional exams Students acceptance rate Defined by law No of graduate students employed in research projects NO beginning characteristics Research committee final outcomes Roughly all pass professional exams NO final outcomes Defined by department research needed Number/proportion of graduates students Defined by law (15%) NO Diversity of student body ( other than geographic) Correlated to subject Number of required classes Defined by law, roughly the same across subjects NO beginning characteristics beginning characteristics beginning characteristics

27 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Resources: student and staff support Library: Satisfaction from library Library size Number of Journals Library size per person (size per student) Administration LI-resources No per person (No per graduate student) Administration LI-resources Library- currency of collection Administration LI-resources Library- spending Administration LI-resources Computers/IT: Satisfaction from IT infrastructure (survey) Computers/IT spending Administration LI-resources Number of public computers and connection pints Administration LI-resources Internet bandwidth Administration LI-resources Comprehensiveness of electronic support Proportion of on-line books, journals and access to data bases (Library collections) Library LI-resources

28 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Facilities/Infrastructures: Satisfaction from available infrastructures (other than library and IT) (survey) Facilities spending spending per student Administration LI-resources Seats: students ratio Number of classrooms/lab/lamb/ workstation, etc Student support: academic Quality of available infrastructures (staff opinion) Quality of available infrastructures (students opinion) Satisfaction from staff (survey) LI-resources (survey) LI-resources (survey) Scholarships and bursaries percent of budget spent on Administration LI-resources Student: faculty ratio Comprehensiveness of academic services/support Satisfaction from services learning inputs - staff (survey) LI-resources E-learning No of e-material and e-classes Administration LI-resources Course offered Administration LI-resources

29 Student support: non academic Satisfaction from University services (others) (survey) Student services: Percent of budget spent on Administration LI-resources Number of residential spaces Job/career services/counseling Extracurricular activities Comprehensives of life support services Total spending per student Staff support: Satisfaction from lodging Satisfaction from career services/ counseling Satisfaction from extracurricular activities Satisfaction from living in City defined by ministry (survey) LI-resources (survey) LI-resources (survey) LI-resources (survey) LI-resources Ministry of Education LI-resources Laboratory spending Administration LI-resources Media equipment Administration LI-resources Total spending per academic staff Administration learning inputsstaff Faculty pay defined by law Ministry of Education learning inputsstaff Number of postdoctoral appointments supported less than 1% Ministry of Education learning inputsstaff

30 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Revenue/assets: Size of university endowment/ investment activities Administration Li-resources Annual giving Administration Li-resources Student fees Administration Li-resources Other institutional measures Class size Entry flexibility Comprehensiveness of life support services Time to degree By law attending class it is not compulsory Defined by law Satisfaction from life support services Ministry of Education (survey) NO NO mean number of semesters needed to degree

31 performance indicators (Nina Van Dyke) measurement (proposed) availability (source) Appropriateness (Greece) Usher & Savino Stakeholder Opinion Academic Employees Students Other measures: Cost of living/general information on city/town General information on university There is not external or internal evaluation NO reputation week or no connection to market and society NO reputation Satisfaction from University (in total) (survey) reputation Due to Greek educational system not applicable (survey) NO

32 Discussion-Conclusions The authors perceive that this work make a contribution to a ranking dialogue mostly from students perspectives. The ranking scheme will be useful for pupils in order to make selection among Greek universities, for government policy makers in order to make the proper arrangement for funding purposes, for university s benchmarking purposes and for other stakeholders to have a clear view of the Greek universities.

33 Discussion-Conclusions We assume apart form official data concerning the research activities and the infrastructure, the most crucial fact in estimating quality is the opinion and perceptions of students. Students are the users of a higher education institute. They try highly to enter to the university spending time, money and effort to reach their goal. The Universities contribute to the society producing well educated, socially motivated and also potentially critical thinking people.

34 Students Ranking is needed from possible students as an information system to an approach similar to CHE. Potential students could compare departments or even Universities based on their own criteria. They need reliable information, collected by the proper authorities and institutes.

35 Universities Ranking is needed from Universities mainly as a diagnostic tool and/or as an instrument of quality assurance; however Greek universities are obliged by law to establish mechanisms of quality assurance. The indices we mentioned above could be use for that. They must establish a research unit similar to AUTH s observatory, in order to collect and analyze data. For each university a best practice approach should base on a model similar to Usher and Savino proposal. Beginning characteristics, Inputs and Outcomes could be estimated from the data collected. Furthermore, for each university this could be used as an initial point for a SWOT analysis.

36 Government Ranking is needed for the government and in a broader sense for the society. Government or society bodies, responsible for decision making, should know the data in order to setting the scene. They need to know to establish a system of priorities and to maximize the money spending for each university. They have the obligation to help the universities providing the means and the obligation to check the outcomes provided by the universities. They need a clustering approach based on reliable information.

37 International Bodies Ranking is useful for International bodies and organizations. In a globalization era they need to compare according to several criteria in a benchmarking approach-. An analytical model could summarize the main characteristics taking into account the most useful information. Opinion, beliefs and views the potential user has. Take into account the main factors obtained from the analysis we could explain and controlling the most of a student want from a university.

38 AUTH From the multivariate analysis we get (for AUTH s students) that they mainly are informed for University through non-official sources. That means the reputation of the Institute plays a significant role. They expect there will be an open bridge between university and the labour market. General abilities and skills are the most important learning factor for them. They concern firstly for cultural activities, secondly for significant infrastructure concerning facilitating studies, thirdly for board and lodging. Sports infrastructure, socialization and information follow.

39 Conclusion Further research is needed. Although a number of indices were proposed by several authors and organizations, there is need for weighing variables, clustering variables, setting a general system of priorities, harmonizing variables across countries and universities.

40 Thank you