Building Romanian World Class UniversitiesChallenge, Honor or Necessity?

Paul Paul ŞŞerban Agachierban AgachiUniversitatea “Babeş-Bolyai”, Cluj-NapocaBerlin, 18-19 May, 2006

Challenge

The development of the HE system in The development of the HE system in Romania after 1989, Romania after 1989, communist communist legacies and transition toward a legacies and transition toward a democratic approachdemocratic approach –– perverse perverse effect effect –– boom of the HE institutions boom of the HE institutions in ROin RO

Challenge

Academic community that did not develop Academic community that did not develop a comprehensive and coherent a comprehensive and coherent evaluation evaluation cultureculture -- still characterized by the costill characterized by the co--existence of radically different opinions existence of radically different opinions and dilemmas and dilemmas (e.g. changes in HE policies from an (e.g. changes in HE policies from an evaluation based on international relevance and evaluation based on international relevance and recognized academic performance, to an approach that recognized academic performance, to an approach that byby--passes, in a diplomatic manner, the effort to put passes, in a diplomatic manner, the effort to put research performance on the top priorities agenda of research performance on the top priorities agenda of HE institution)HE institution)

Challenge

Struggle of the representative HE Struggle of the representative HE institutions to institutions to redefine their role and redefine their role and status at international, national and status at international, national and regional levelregional levelPerformance strategiesPerformance strategies based on based on individuals, groups or departments individuals, groups or departments actions and initiativesactions and initiativesStruggle for Struggle for funds and developmentfunds and development

Honour

Having WCUHaving WCU -- an image of the quality an image of the quality of life of that countryof life of that country

Having WCUHaving WCU -- the level of educationthe level of education

Having WCUHaving WCU –– puts in evidence the puts in evidence the eexistingxisting research and teachingresearch and teachingcapacitiescapacities

Necessity

Global competitionGlobal competitionBrain drain phenomenonBrain drain phenomenonNeed toNeed to enhance attraction enhance attraction and to develop a and to develop a well recognized University brandwell recognized University brandRanking as an instrument of Ranking as an instrument of quality quality assurance assurance andand quality enhancementquality enhancementRanking as a Ranking as a challenge to reflect challenge to reflect continuously on the relevance of your continuously on the relevance of your resultsresultsRankings as Rankings as a measure of how we define a measure of how we define who we are and why we should existwho we are and why we should exist in the in the regional, national and international contextregional, national and international context

Why a Romanian Ranking of HE institutions?

International visibilityInternational visibilityEntering in international rankingsPromoting competitive educational offers at European and international level

Internal visibilityInternal visibilityPromoting the university “brand”

Previous proposed evaluation procedures (Nica, 2000)

Indicator (factor) Percentage

Academic prestige 20%

Selectivity of students and university attractiveness 10%Human resource management 20%Scientific research, advanced studies, master and PhD

15%Student and graduate performance 10%Financial resources and providing conditions for carrying

out didactic processes 15%University strategic management 10%

TOTAL 100%

Instead of a ranking…CNFISQuality based financing system for HE institutions

Group 1. Teaching staff• Quality of the teaching staff; • Development potential of the teaching staff; Group 2. The impact of scientific research on the

didactic process• Performance level in scientific research; • Means of disseminating the scientific research capacity; Group 3. Infrastructure• Quality of the infrastructure; • Quality of the means of documentation.Group 4. University management• Quality of academic, administrative and financial

management; • Quality of social and administrative services.

Proposals regarding the grid for Romanian Universities Ranking

100TOTAL15Academic reputation of the institution 510Size of the institution 425Quality of education320Quality of the teaching staff 230Results of scientific research 1

%CriteriaNo.

Proposals regarding the grid for Romanian Universities Ranking

10The number of teaching staff with a PhDN 2.3

20The number of doctoral coordinators N 2.2

20The number of professors within the teaching staffN 2.1

10Teaching staff with other international distinctions - list made up by the CNCSIS and the Ranking Agency

I 2.3

20Highly cited researchers in 21 topicsI 2.2

20Staff having Nobel Prizes and Field medalsI 2.1

20

2. Quality of the teaching staff

50Result of the National Council for Scientific Research in HE (CNCSIS) evaluation

N1.1

25Publications in SCI and SSCI, Art and Humanities (articles, proceedings, books, ISI patents

I 1.2

25Articles published in Nature and ScienceI 1.1

30

1. Results of scientific research

%% in

criteriaCriteria / Indicator No.

Propuneri privind grila de ierarhizare a universităţilor din România

25

Actual financial resources (without budgetary allocations and tuition fees for carrying out the didactic process) per teaching staff and as total sum from budgetary sources, without the proportion allocated or required as fees for carrying out the didactic process

N 4.2

25Number of students per full-time teaching staffN 4.1

50Academic performance in relation to the size of the institution (the result of the points in I1-I4 in relation to the total number of full-time teaching staff)

I 4.1

10

4. Size of the institution

25The percentage of students doing postgraduate studies within the total number of students

N 3.2

25The number of graduates who are employed or build up their own business within a year from graduation

N 3.1

20Graduates with other international prizesI 3.2

30Graduates – Alumni with Nobel Prizes and Field MedalsI 3.1

25

3. Quality of education

%% în

criteriuCriteriu / Indicator Nr. crt.

Propuneri privind grila de ierarhizare a universităţilor din România

100TOTAL

25Relevance in society – consulting and services to the community, technological transferN 5.2

25National academic reputation (National Rectors’ Conference - CNR member universities)N 5.1

20International students incoming/ outgoing (at least one semester) for the past 3 yearsI 5.3

20Visiting professor incoming/ outgoing (at least one month) in the past 3 yearsI 5.2

10International academic reputation (representative sample of universities)I 5.1

15

5. Academic reputation of the institution

%% în

criteriuCriteriu / Indicator Nr. crt.

Nota:Ii – indicators for international relevanceNi – indicators for national relevance

Data collection and Data collection and validation processvalidation process

Databases IndicatorsCollecting source

I 2.1, I 3.1, I 3.2, N 3.1, N 4.1, I 5.2, I 5.3, N 5.2

Universities databases

N 2.1, N 2.2, N 2.3, N 3.2, N 4.1, N 4.2

CNFIS

N 1.1, I 2.3, N 2.2, N 2.3CNCSIS

I 1.1 , I.1.2, I 2.2ISI

Data collection and Data collection and validation processvalidation process

Surveys

N 3.2, N 5.1, N 5.2

National: stakeholders (employers, local factors, parents, civil society, students, universities)

I 5.1SURVEYS in the EUA, IAU universities

IndicatorsCollection sources

Outputs

Official rankingGlobalPartial

Optional rankingranking obtained by combining 2 or 3 different criteria and indicators

Alternative rankingsAlternative rankingsobtained by beneficiaries of the HE institutions educational offers based on beneficiaries percentages allocated to different types of criteria and indicators

Who will implement the Who will implement the evaluation process?evaluation process?

Independent Agency that will cooperate with:

Ministry of Education and Research

CNCSIS, CNFIS

HE institutions

stakeholders

Beneficiary

The necessary actions for The necessary actions for implementation the rankingimplementation the ranking

The establishment of the Agency for the ranking of universities;The setting up of the operational working groups made up of experts; The elaboration of the data collecting, validating and interpreting methodology;The elaboration of the measuring instruments and their validation; The data collection and validation; Data analysis; Drafting the official classifications (global and particle according to criteria); The creation of the IT platform for making up the optional rankings (web pages, on-line access); The publication of the hierarchies; The organization of debates.

Agency Organizational Agency Organizational ChartChart

SteeringCommittee

GL1Metodologie

GL 2Culegere şi validare

date

GL 3Dezvoltări aplicaţii informatice şi Web

GL 4Sondaje

Director Executiv

Conclusions

Positive aspects of Romanian ranking:

Creates reputation for some HE institutions of quality

Informs the public on the performance of the higher education institutions; guides the potential candidates for admission according to the qualitative level of the higher education institution;

Points out to the higher education institutions the negative aspects that could be corrected;

Allows for easily quantifiable comparative approaches;

Allows for a more judicious allocation of the financial resources from public funds among universities.

1

Conclusions

Negative aspects:

Could create a false vision on what education in a university means, if the indicators are not sufficiently detailed; The ranking becomes an obsession for institutions;Hierarchies tend to reflect the education of the elites, the contribution of the university to the development of the society being neglected; In some ranking methodologies, the exit and entrance outputs are willingly placed in the same category with the indicators of state, as one supposed that some of them, if they exist, create the conditions for institutional quality, which is not necessarily true.

2

The ranking system we proposed is useful for the following reasons:

It constitutes a stimulating tool for universities as far an increase in their performance is concerned; Allows for the development and application of certain stimulating financial policies by the Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MEdC);

1

The ranking system we proposed is useful for the following reasons:

It constitutes an objective information tool for the higher education beneficiaries; It constitutes a useful tool for those universities that wish to be a part of international rankings;

2

The ranking system we proposed is useful for the following reasons:

It makes universities aware of the their weak and strong points and prepares them for competition under the circumstances of liberalising the education and labour markets, once Romania accedes to the EU

1