|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2009‒09‒19
three papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Bernardino, Pedro; Marques, Rui |
| Abstract: | The academic rankings are a controversial subject in higher education. However, despite all the criticism, academic rankings are here to stay and more and more different stakeholders use rankings to obtain information about the institutions’ performance. The two most well-known rankings, The Times and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings have different methodologies. The Times ranking is based on peer review, whereas the Shanghai ranking has only quantitative indicators and is mainly based on research outputs. In Germany, the CHE ranking uses a different methodology from the traditional rankings, allowing the users to choose criteria and weights. The Portuguese higher education institutions are performing below their European peers, and the Government believes that an academic ranking could improve both performance and competitiveness between institutions. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the advantages and problems of academic rankings and provide guidance to a new Portuguese ranking. |
| Keywords: | Academic rankings; CHE; higher education; performance evaluation; Portugal; Shanghai; THES |
| JEL: | I2 I23 |
| Date: | 2009–08–31 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:17297&r=sog |
| By: | Joseph Macri (Department of Economics, Macquarie University); Michael McAleer (Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Tinbergen Institute and Center for International Research on the Japanese Economy (CIRJE), Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo); Dipendra Sinha (College of Management, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University and Institute of Economic Growth, and Department of Economics, Macquarie University) |
| Abstract: | Just as friendly arguments based on an ignorance of facts eventually led to the creation of the definitive Guinness Book of World Records, any argument about university rankings has seemingly been a problem without a solution. To state the obvious, alternative rankings methodologies can and do lead to different rankings. This paper evaluates the robustness of rankings of Australian and New Zealand economics teaching departments for 1988-2002 and 1996-2002 using alternative rankings methodologies, and compares the results with the rankings obtained by Macri and Sinha (2006). In the overall mean rankings for both 1988- 2006 and 1996-2002, the University of Melbourne is ranked first, followed by UWA and ANU. |
| Date: | 2009–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tky:fseres:2009cf660&r=sog |
| By: | Gartell, Marie (Institute for Futures Studies) |
| Abstract: | The ranking of colleges varies both across methods and model specifications. Still, earnings equations tend to be consistent with regard to which colleges that on average are found in the top and bottom half of the earnings distribution. Moreover, there are no systematic differences in the ranking of colleges dependent on the age of the college, i.e. old versus new colleges. Although ranking by earnings equations provide some information about the relation to earnings, endogeneity issues preclude any causal interpretation of the rankings presented here. |
| Keywords: | University education; college chocie; ranking |
| JEL: | I21 J16 J24 J31 J44 |
| Date: | 2009–09–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:ifauwp:2009_019&r=sog |