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