Comments
Description
Transcript
Diapositiva 1
Universities within the Innovation Global Market: Rankings importance and limits and Vision proposal 10, October 2011 IREG CONFERENCE - BRATISLAVA 1 The presentation is an abstract of the article Identify Areas of Improvements in the Universities Ranking and the Vision rankings (2009, 2010, 2011) available at www.visionwebsite.eu 2 Agenda • • • • Rankings’ merits and limits Vision’s proposal Results Next steps 3 Merits CLIENT CHOICES SUPPLY STRATEGIES EMPLOYEES STUDENTS AND FAMILIES POLICY MAKERS VISIBILITY RESEARCHERS UNIVERSITIES FUNDERS 4 Rankings Map Source: Vision 5 Limits METHODOLOGY LIMITS • Transparency and comparability • Size and scientific production biases • Self assessment and little attention to clients’ choice • Relevance UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES • Innovation • Competition 6 Dynamism and Country Bias Shangai THE FT MBA Ranking Harvard University Harvard University London Business School Wall-mart Stores Coca-Cola Toyota Switzerland Spain # of times current winner ended in 1st position in the previous 6 years 6 6 2 5 6 1 2 1 # of times current top 10 ended in the top 10 in the previous 6 years 60 57 48 28 50 49 51 35 # of countries represented in the top 20 2 4 7 8 6 7 n. a. n. a. 100% 90% 55% 45% 75% 50% n. a. n. a. Last winner % of organizations that belongs to the top 2 countries (top 20) Top 500 Fortune (by revenues) Top brand Interbrand Car Producer (Top 50) Countries Competitiveness (WEF) FIFA ranking Source: Vision processing of Rankings’ websites information 7 The problem How to save rankings’ merits – visibility – and improve rankings’ flexibility and relevance? Open data, returns, clients with a per product and per segment approach 8 Vision methodology MORE RANKINGS • Absolute value • Normalized by size • Dynamic UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 1. 2. International students Students coming from other regions 3. Students with full mark 4. Placement 5. Students satisfaction 6. Private funding for research 7. Citations on GoogleScholar 8. Media Coverage 9 Internationalization and quality Overall score, Vision rankings (2011, 2010) Ranking most international italian universities (2011) 70 Correlazione: 0,45926 Uni Bocconi Milano 60 Uni Stranieri Perugia Uni Stranieri Siena 50 Uni Carlo Cattaneo Politecnico Torino Uni Bolzano 40 LUISS 30 20 10 Uni Kore Enna Uni Europea Roma 0 0 10 Uni Jean Monnet 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ranking best italian universities* (2010) Source: Vision on MIUR, CNSVU, Google, Italian Dailies, ISTAT * Without indicators on international students 10 Vision - Internationalization ranking (2011) 1. International Students 2. International faculty 3. FTE exchange students outgoing plus FTE exchange students incoming 4. FTE exchange faculty outgoing plus FTE exchange faculty incoming 5. BRIC +5 students 6. BRIC + 5 faculty 7. Cultural diversity 8. Satisfaction 9. Growth rates IS 10. Growth rates IF 11 Vision (2011) – The ranking Università Voto Finale 1 Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi” 58,3 2 Università per Stranieri di Perugia 57,3 3 Università per Stranieri di Siena 53,7 4 Politecnico di Torino 43,6 5 Università “Carlo Cattaneo” - LIUC 42,9 6 Università di Bolzano 42,8 7 Libera Università degli Studi “Maria SS Assunta” Roma 36,3 8 Libera Univ. Luiss “Giudo Carli” - Roma 35,3 9 Politecnico di Milano 31,6 10 Università degli Studi di Roma “Foro Italico” 29,4 12 International students on total (2010) 30% 25% 28.4% 24.7% 20% 16.2% 15% 10.8% 10.2% 10% 9.0% 7.1% 6.4% 5% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 5.7% 5.5% 5.2% 5.0% 4.9% 0% Fonte: Dati MIUR, elaborazione Vision 13 International students BRIC+ EU 5 on total (2010) 10% 8.8% 8.3% 8% 6.4% 6% 4% 3.6% 3.2% 2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0% Fonte: elaborazione Vision su dati CNVSU e MIUR 14 Exchange faculty outgoing as percentage of total (2010) 30 26.5 20 20.0 14.5 13.3 11.7 10 10.0 9.1 9.1 7.5 6.0 6.0 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.0 0 Fonte: elaborazione Vision su dati LLP ed ERASMUS 15 Limits METHODOLOGY LIMITS • Transparency and comparability • Size and scientific production biases • Self assessment and little attention to clients’ choice • Relevance UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES • Innovation • Competition 16 Next steps • • • • • • RETURN GROWTH RATES PER SEGMENT PER PRODUCT COMPETITORS OTHER COUNTRIES 17 www.visionwebsite.eu 18