Search

University systems with a high level of academic inbreeding tend to be closed to attracting (inter)national talent, while instead prioritizing retention of the human factor in the institution and t...

[EN] Purpose This study aims to analyse and evaluate the methodology followed by the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (THE-IR), as well as the coverage obtained and the data offered by this ranking, to determine if its methodology reflects the degree of sustainability of universities, and whether their results are accurate enough to be used as a data source for research and strategic decision-making. Design/methodology/approach A summative content analysis of the THE-IR methodology was conducted, paying special attention to the macro-structure (university score) and micro-structure (sustainable development goals [SDG] score) levels of the research-related metrics. Then, the data published by THE-IR in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 edition was collected via web scraping. After that, all the data was statistically analysed to find out performance rates, SDGs' success rates and geographic distributions. Finally, a pairwise comparison of the THE-IR against the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE-WUR) was conducted to calculate overlap measures. Findings Severe inconsistencies in the THE-IR methodology have been found, offering a distorted view of sustainability in higher education institutions, allowing different strategic actions to participate in the ranking (interested, strategic, committed and outperformer universities). The observed growing number of universities from developing countries and the absence of world-class universities reflect an opportunity for less-esteemed institutions, which might have a chance to gain reputation based on their efforts towards sustainability, but from a flawed ranking which should be avoided for decision-making. Practical implications University managers can be aware of the THE-IR validity when demanding informed decisions. University ranking researchers and practitioners can access a detailed analysis of the THE-IR to determine its properties as a ranking and use raw data from THE-IR in other studies or reports. Policy makers can use the main findings of this work to avoid misinterpretations when developing public policies related to the evaluation of the contribution of universities to the SDGs. Otherwise, these results can help the ranking publisher to improve some of the inconsistencies found in this study. Social implications Given the global audience of the THE-IR, this work contributes to minimising the distorted vision that the THE-IR projects about sustainability in higher education institutions, and alerts governments, higher education bodies and policy makers to take precautions when making decisions based on this ranking. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, this contribution is the first providing an analysis of the THE-IR's methodology. The faults in the methodology, the coverage at the country-level and the overlap between THE-IR and THE-WUR have unveiled the existence of specific strategies in the participation of universities, of interest both for experts in university rankings and SDGs., This project has been supported by the project UNIVERSEO (Ref. GV/2021/141), funded by the regional government of Generalitat Valenciana (Spain).

The Moscow International University Ranking (MosIUR) is a global university ranking launched in 2017 with the intention of evaluating universities by considering three essential dimensions (education, research, and knowledge transfer). This ranking was designed and developed by the Russian Union of Rectors following a direct request from President Vladimir Putin. The objective of this work is to perform a threefold analysis of this ranking. First, a methodological analysis is carried out, focused on describing the nature of the indicators and sources employed. Second, a geopolitical analysis aims to determine how countries are represented in this new global ranking. Third, a webometric analysis is done, focused on the online visibility of the ranking. The results reveal MosIUR to be a ranking with an outstanding number of webometric indicators and clearly oriented towards transference to society. However, some methodological concerns arise regarding a few metrics. The geopolitical position of developed countries is similar to that in other global rankings, but slight differences emerge, such as the stronger presence of Russian universities. The cybermetric analysis confirms that, despite being international, this ranking is strongly limited to Russia. It can be concluded that, except for the palpable predominance of the USA, each ranking tends to place universities from their own country in a better position. The creation of MosIUR by the Russian government can thus be perceived as a political strategy to improve the reputation of Russian universities, increase funding, and accelerate their transformation into world-class universities.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Tertiary Education and Management on 2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13583883.2017.1296966, New public management and increasing levels of competition driven by global rankings are bringing the managerial practices of public and private higher education institutions closer together. However, these two types of institutions still maintain different objectives and traditions and enjoy different degrees of autonomy that are reflected in their internal organisational structures. We study the relative efficiency and productivity performance of private and public universities in Spain through two adaptations of the Malmquist Index. Results show that, in 2009/2010, the greater flexibility of private universities meant a better adjustment between inputs and outputs in the private sector. However, in 2013/2014, public universities had caught up with private universities. Because of the economic crisis, the inputs of public universities have decreased, but this decrease had not fully impacted their results in 2013/2014

El fomento de la empleabilidad y la adquisición de competencias se han convertido en una de las prioridades de la educación superior para los países pertenecientes al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Este artículo tiene el objetivo de evaluar el impacto de las competencias genéricas y otras variables sociodemográficas, académicas y laborales en la probabilidad de tener un empleo de los titulados universitarios en España. La fuente de datos utilizada es la encuesta de 2015 del Observatorio de Empleabilidad y Empleo Universitarios. Entre los resultados obtenidos destaca que las competencias más relevantes son las sistémicas y que algunas variables, como el sexo o el ciclo de los estudios cursados, condicionan notablemente dicha probabilidad. De esta forma, se ofrece información que puede contribuir a mejorar la adecuación de los planes de estudio en las universidades y a aplicar políticas públicas más efectivas para facilitar el acceso al empleo, The promotion of employability and the acquisition of competences have become one of the priorities of higher education for the countries that belong to the European Higher Education Area. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the impact of generic competences and other sociodemographic, academic and work-related variables on the probability of having a job for university graduates in Spain. This analysis uses data from the 2015 survey by the Observatory for University Employability and Employment. The results reveal that the most relevant competences are the systemic ones, and that the rest of variables, such as sex or the cycle of studies, condition notably that probability. Thus, the findings of this article can contribute to improve the adaptation of academic programs in universities and to enact more effective public policies to facilitate the access to employment.

Technical Universities (TUs) exhibit a distinct ranking performance in comparison with other universities. In this paper we identify 137 TUs included in the THE Ranking (2017 edition) and analyse their scores statistically. The results highlight the existence of clusters of TUs showing a general high performance in the Industry Income category and, in many cases, a low performance on Research and Teaching. Finally, the global score weights were simulated, creating several scenarios that confirmed that the majority of TUs (except those with a world-class status) would increase their final scores if industrial income was accounted for at the levels parametrised., Comment: 34 pages, 5 figures, 9 tables

Although global rankings do not classify national university systems, the majority of countries are reformulating their HE policies to improve the ranking position of their best universities. Accordingly, this paper studies the case of France and Spain through the analysis of their respective national policies for the promotion of university international excellence (stateMlevel response to global rankings). In particular, we discuss two initiatives of university collaboration (institutionalMlevel response to global rankings) aimed to create synergies and increase the international visibility of the participant institutions: the new branded university Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL) and the Campus of International Excellence of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Spanish Research Council (CEI UAM+CSIC). In both case studies the participant institutions keep their autonomy and legal personality, a difficult alliance formula to administrate. Nevertheless, they are good practices that reflect a wide stateMrun strategy for the modernization of both national university systems.

This paper analyses the labour market entry of Spanish school leavers and the match between education and work at the early stages of working life, using a specific data set drawn from the Spanish Module Education to Labour Market Transitions (2000). Special attention is paid to university graduates, because Spain experienced a strong growth in the demand for higher education during the last decades of the 20th century. The empirical evidence shows that although over-education is a common phenomenon in the Spanish youth labour market, being a graduate seems to be associated with a lower likelihood of over-education in the first job. Our results indicate that over-education affects more women than men and foreigners than Spaniards.

This article examines how knowledge transfer (KT) indicators affect analyses on efficiency in the Higher Education sector, taking into account the characteristics of the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). After revising the concept of third mission as a field for data development and its importance in assessing university performance, we applied various data envelopment analysis models with different specifications to 47 Spanish public universities to test whether KT indicators are relevant when evaluating the performance of HEIs in terms of their efficiency and, if so, which indicators are most suitable. Our results suggest that the effect of including KT indicators in the efficiency analyses varies from university to university according to their characteristics. The subject mix taught at the university, the focus according to each mission’s relative importance within the total range of activities carried out in each university (mission mix), and the mix of their third mission activities affect the increase of the universities’ efficiency scores when KT is taken into account in the analysis. This means that these factors affect the universities’ position for the different efficiency scores.

In recent years, the higher education (HE) sector has undergone a drastic transformation due to the globalisation of knowledge. World university rankings have supported this process and have fostered the consolidation of the global market of HE (Salmi, 2009; Altbach & Salmi, 2011). These global rankings (mainly, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings (QS)) seem to take into account a wide spectrum of variables to rank universities.

This article examines the trend in expenditure per student at higher education institutions in the EU-15 countries, during the period 1998–2006. The results show that there was a tendency towards convergence (as measured by sigma and beta convergence analysis). The ratio of convergence is higher after 2001, suggesting that the implementation of European-level policies (e.g. the Bologna Declaration and the Lisbon Strategy) had an impact not only in the political arena, but also at an economic level. The convergence has been driven more by private financial resources than by public ones, supporting evidence for a gradual transformation of the patterns of financing higher education in Europe. There are elements that continue to influence the level of expenditure of individual countries; mainly their wealth as measured by GDP per capita.

The current financial context constitutes a challenge to European Higher Education Institutions in the sense that they must look to increasing their budgets with new activities. This context has led governments and European universities to promote not only the traditional private funding sources (such as transfer of knowledge or tuition fees), but also new means of raising supplementary philanthropic (private) funds for educational and research purposes. Therefore, the actual European context may also represents an opportunity for the development of their fundraising strategy, since a determined fundraising program will bring supplementary private funds to the institutions reducing the frequent internal resistance and increasing the willingness to overcome the lack of experience in this field in Europe. This paper highlights the change and opportunity that raising independent income from donations implies, in order to achieve excellence and add value to core funding. Here we review UK and Spain cases with special attention in two case studies: Cambridge University, as an example of a well-known prestigious European university with extensive experience in fundraising; and the University of Navarra, as a case of a relevant experience in fundraising policy in a private southern European university.

Con la plena implantación del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (EEES), el contexto de referencia de las universidades españolas ya no radica en sus fronteras o incluso en las de la UE-27 (Unión Europea – 27), sino que se extiende a 48 países europeos y más de 4.000 instituciones de educación superior. Por este motivo, las universidades españolas tienen que abrir sus horizontes: formular nuevas estrategias de cara a la internacionalización y buscar fuentes de financiación innovadoras. Se trata de crear un entorno académico, científico, emprendedor y creativo para tener una mayor visibilidad internacional y una mayor repercusión en el entorno económico y social. En este contexto, dos nuevos retos se tornan claves en el desarrollo futuro de las universidades españolas: la diversificación y búsqueda de nuevas fuentes de financiación, concretamente en la figura del fundraising o captación de fondos de aquellas personas, entidades, antiguos alumnos, empresas, organizaciones, fundaciones, etc. que quieran compartir los objetivos y misiones de la universidad y el concepto de responsabilidad social universitaria. Las instituciones de educación superior tienen que responder ante más partes interesadas y rendir cuentas en un mayor ámbito de sus actividades, no sólo docencia e investigación, sino también la llamada tercera misión. Por ello, tienen que efectuar elecciones estratégicas sobre las actividades que van a realizar y las funciones que van a cumplir para poder desarrollarlas con el nivel de calidad y exigencia adecuados.

In the last few years, internationalization process of higher education has become one of the most important phenomena. Focusing on an international comparison about higher education, there are currently an increasing number of rankings of higher education institutions (HEIs) at local, national and international levels. These rankings and league tables cannot be obviated because they directly or indirectly concern the entire university community. The aim of this article is two-fold. For one hand, it describes the main characteristics and trends of international rankings of higher education institutions. For the other hand, it reflects on strategies for the future of HEIs based on SWOT analysis on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of university rankings.

La educación superior está inmersa en un proceso de transformación a nivel mundial y se está configurando un mercado global en el que los principales competidores son las buenas universidades que ocupan las primeras posiciones en los rankings globales. En algunos países europeos comparativamente peor posicionados en dichas clasificaciones, como Alemania y Francia, se han puesto en marcha políticas públicas que pretenden impulsar las transformaciones y mejorar la posición internacional de sus principales universidades a través de más financiación y mayor masa crítica. Algunas universidades de estos países han reaccionado a estas políticas con estrategias de colaboraciones, alianzas que están suponiendo, en el caso europeo, una importante transformación de las instituciones de educación superior alemanas y francesas, de su gobernanza y de la organización del propio sistema de educación superior a nivel nacional. En España, a imagen y semejanza de estos países se lanzó en 2009 el programa “Campus de Excelencia Internacional” (CEI) con el objetivo de impulsar la transformación de la universidad española a través de procesos de agregación con otras instituciones y entidades de su entorno y/o a través de incrementar la financiación y la calidad investigadora. La estrategia desarrollada por las universidades para su participación en este programa no ha conducido a procesos de fusión como en otros países europeos y se ha centrado en la colaboración entre universidades sobre proyectos concretos para mejorar la eficiencia y conseguir una mayor visibilidad internacional. En esta comunicación, se analizan los resultados a nivel estatal y autonómico que se derivan de las distintas convocatorias del CEI y se revisan dos casos de estudio de la primera convocatoria, que se podría considerar representativos de los extremos, en un lado el CEI UAM+CSIC que plantea una alianza entre dos instituciones y en el otro la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid que presentó un proyecto “en solitario”. Aunque todavía es pronto para analizar las consecuencias que estas estrategias han tenido sobre sus respectivas instituciones, se concluye con una valoración positiva sobre el impacto de la política educativa del programa CEI en lo que va de quinquenio en el entorno de la Comunidad de Madrid.