Is there a gap between students’ preference and university presidents’ concern over college ranking indicators?: a case study of “College Navigator in Taiwan”
- 776 Downloads
In order to help students make well-informed choices, reliable college ranking systems with comparable information about higher education institutions worldwide have been welcomed by many students. Because traditional college rankings had many methodological problems, a new type of user-based ranking, called “personalized college ranking” started to develop in many nations in the late 1990s. In 2008, Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT), launched a ranking project called “College Navigator in Taiwan” which developed the first Asian student-based college search engine to provide local and international students with transparent information on Taiwan’s higher education institutions. The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to compare the rational, strategies and pathways for establishing personalized college rankings. In order to analyze the gap between students’ preferences and university presidents’concerns over ranking indicators, HEEACT’s “College Navigator in Taiwan” is adopted as a case study at the end of paper.
KeywordsHigher education Personalized college ranking Indicator
- 2nd International Ranking Expert Group (the 2nd IREG). (2006). The Berlin principle on ranking of higher education institutions. [Online] Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf.
- Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernadez, M. (2007). Webometrics ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology and future development. Paper presented at The 3rd Meeting IREG Meeting, Shanghai.Google Scholar
- Altbach, P. G. (2006). The dilemmas of ranking. International higher education, 42. [Online] Retrieved Feb. 22, 2006, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number42/p2_Altbach.htm.
- Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE), & Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS). (2008). The CHE ranking of European universities: A pilot study in Flanders and the Netherlands. Oslo and Enschede: CHE and CHEPS.Google Scholar
- Federkeil, G. (2009). Multi-dimensional, personalized rankings in Europe. Evaluation Bimonthly, 22, 23–26.Google Scholar
- Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). (2011). College navigator in Taiwan. [Online] Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://cnt.heeact.edu.tw/index2.asp.
- Hou, Y. C. (2012). Impact of excellence programs on Taiwan higher education in terms of quality assurance and academic excellence, examining the conflicting role of Taiwan’s accrediting agencies. Asian Pacific Educational Review, 13(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
- Hou, Y. C., & Morse, R. (2009). Quality assurance and excellence in Taiwan higher education—An analysis of three Taiwan major college rankings. Evaluation in Higher Education, 3(2), 45–71.Google Scholar
- Hou, Y. C., Morse, R. & Jiang, C. L. (2011). An analysis of positions mobility in global rankings: Making institutional strategic plans and positioning for building world class universities. Higher Education Research & Development. On-line, 1–17 Google Scholar
- King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organization, regulation and rankings. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- Levin, D. J. (2002) The uses and abuses of the US News rankings. Priorities 20 (Fall/Autumn).Google Scholar
- Lock, W., Verbik, L., Richardson, J., & King, R. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
- Luca, M., & Smith, J. (2011). Salience in quality disclosure: Evidence from the U.S. News college rankings. [Online] Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/12-014.pdf.
- Maclean’s. (2011). Personalized university ranking tool. [Online] Retrieved March 3, 2011, from http://www.maclean.ca/universities/.
- Merisotis, J. P. (2007). International center on academic ranking [ICAR]—A concept paper. Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
- Ministers Media Center. (2010). Government to introduce ‘My University’ website. [Online] Retrieved July 13, 2011, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/ministers/gillard/media/releases/pages/article_100303_153420.asp.
- Muller-Boling, D., & Federkeil, D. (2007). The CHE-ranking of German, Swiss and Austrian universities. In J. Sadlak & N. C. Liu (Eds.), The world class university and ranking: Aiming beyond status (pp. 189–203). Bucharest: UNSESCO-CEPES.Google Scholar
- Neubauer, D. (2010). Ten globalization challenges to higher education quality and quality assurance. Evaluation in Higher Education, 4(1), 13–38.Google Scholar
- Push (2008). Uni chooser. [Online] Retrieved March 27, 2008 from http://www.push.co.uk/Default.aspx.
- Sadlak, J. (2006). Policy context and organizational arrangements of university ranking. Paper presented at The Challenges of University Ranking conference. [Online] Retrieved Feb.16, 2006, from http://www.leidenslatest.leidenunivnl/content_docs/leiden_js_finaltextla.doc.
- Saisana, M., & D’Hombres, B. (2008). Higher education rankings: Robustness issues and critical assessment. Paris: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Salmi, J., & Bassett, R. M. (2009). Rankings and league tables: A global perspective. Evaluation Bimonthly, 22, 17–22.Google Scholar
- Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2008). Promoting quality literacy: Undoing the damage of rankings. Chiba, Japan: Paper Presented at APQN Conference.Google Scholar
- Stichting SURF. (2008). Studychoice.nl. [Online] Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://www.studychoice123.nl/web/site/default.aspx?m=about.
- Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. (2009). Ranking of universities and higher education institutions for student information purposes?. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Higher Education.Google Scholar
- Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute.Google Scholar