league tables

League tables

Academic assessment (1)
Academic evaluation (33)
Academic qualification (6)
Academic recognition (1)
Accreditation (70)
Code of ethics (30)
Code of practice (11)
Educational effectiveness (1)
Educational quality (58)
Educational standard (6)
League tables (32)
Learning outcomes (18)
Peer review (45)
Recognition of prior learning (1)
Student survey (32)
Study credits (111)
Study programme (93)

The use of league tables facilitates this process. It is also evident that analysis-based narratives such as those supported by composite indicators would gain in effectiveness

The research rating is distinguished from popular media rankings and league tables by a number of unique characteristics:

Inevitably, the RAE results are converted by the media into league tables for ranking the quality of subject areas and universities.

It is not the intention of the funding bodies to create league tables from the RAE 2008 results but that is the likely consequence through the media.

Hazelkorn, E. 2008)‘ Learning to Live with League tables and Ranking: The Experience of Institutional Leaders',Higher education Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 195-215.

League tables and the impact on higher education institutions in England, Circular 2008/14, Bristol: Higher education Funding Council for England.

A Global Survey of University League tables, Canadian Education Report Series, Educational Policy Institute: Toronto. Retrieved 11 august 2009, from http://www. educationalpolicy. org/pdf/World-of-Difference-200602162. pdf. Van Raan, A f. J. 2005)‘ Fatal Attraction:

The conceptual frameworks behind sports league tables are accepted usually well: rules of the game define who the winner is

although the current transparency tools especially university league tables are controversial, they seem to be here to stay,

and that especially global university league tables have a great impact on decision-makers at all levels in all countries,

especially in the research universities that are the main subjects of the current global league tables.

Yet major concerns remain as to league tables'methodological underpinnings and to their policy impact on stratification rather than on diversification of mission.

Classifications and rankings considered in U multirank Type Name Classifications Carnegie classification (USA) U-Map (Europe) Global League tables and Rankings Shanghai Jiao Tong University's (SJTU

) Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU) Times Higher education (Supplement)( THE) QS (Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd) Top Universities Leiden Ranking National League tables and Rankings US News & World Report (USN&WR;

The netherlands) Specialized League tables and Rankings Financial times ranking of business schools and programmes (FT; global) Businessweek (business schools, USA+global) The Economist (business schools;

global) The major dimensions along which we analysed the classifications, rankings and league tables included: Level: e g. institutional vs. field-based Scope:

Most are presented as league tables; especially the most influential ones, the global university rankings are all league tables. The relationship of indicators collected

and their weights in calculating the league table rank of an institution are not based on explicit let alone scientifically justifiable conceptual frameworks.

ignoring that they are about different dimensions and sometimes use different scales The problem of league tables:

most rankings are presented as league tables, assigning each institution at least those in the top-50, unique places, suggesting that all differences in indicators are valid and of equal weight (equidistant positions).

'The reputation race (van Vught, 2008) implies the existence of an ever-increasing search by higher education and research institutions and their funders for higher positions in the league tables.

'Institutional leaders are under great pressure to improve their institution's position in the league tables.

but that the current rankings and league tables seem to invite overreactions on too few dimensions

Rankings should not use league tables from 1 to n but should differentiate between clear and robust differences in levels of performance.

the production of league tables and the denial of contextuality. In addition it should minimise the incentives for strategic behaviour on the part of institutions to‘game the results'.

One of the reasons why there is so much criticism of league tables is exactly the point that from similar sets of inputs,

An important factor in the argument against rankings and league tables is the fact that often their selection of indicators is guided primarily by the (easy) availability of data rather than by relevance.

and processes and the dissatisfaction among users of most current league tables and rankings is because they often are interested more in institutional performance

Compared to existing league tables we see this as one of the advantages of our approach.

Grouping 2. 4. 4u-Multirank does not calculate league tables. As has been argued in chapter 1, league table rankings have severe flaws

Academic quality, League tables, and Public Policy: A Cross-National Analysis of University ranking Systems. Higher education, 49,495-533.178 Dulleck, U. and R. Kerschbamer (2006."

A global survey of university league tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute. Van dyke, N. 2005. Twenty Years of University Report cards.