SLIDE 1
IREG 6 Conference, Taipei, 2012 Institutional Perspectives on the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
IREG 6 Conference, Taipei, 2012 Institutional Perspectives on the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
IREG 6 Conference, Taipei, 2012 Institutional Perspectives on the Strategic Impact of Rankings Implications from a Case Study of the University of Canterbury (NZ) ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY Key Statistics Enrollment & Staff
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
- Enrollment & Staff (as of September 2011)
- 18,175 students (headcount)
- 1,324 international students (headcount)
- 589 continuing academic staff (FTE), of 1,568 total
continuing staff (FTE)
- Organized in five colleges (Arts, Business & Economics,
Education, Engineering, Science) and the School of Law
- Research Strengths
- Host of 25 research centers across all fields
- Consistently scoring in the top 500 ARWU (Shanghai
Ranking) since 2003
- UC engineering faculty as NZ leading expert in civil engineering
- UC faculty devised building standards for New Zealand
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
Key Statistics
SLIDE 4
Notes: Ranges have been displayed with their top value; institutional ranks have been modified to accommodate data display. Source: ARWU.
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
ARWU Ranking with International Peers
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
University of Canterbury and International Peers ARWU 2003-2011 Rankings
Auburn University University of Auckland University of Canterbury University of Essex University of Hannover University of Otago
SLIDE 5
Notes: From 2005 to 2009, the rankings refer to the joint THE‐QS Rankings; for 2010 and 2011, the rankings refer to the QS Rankings alone. Source: QS.
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
QS Ranking with New Zealand Peers
67 52 46 50 65 61 68 82 114 186 79 114 124 125 135 130 333 188 186 188 189 212 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
University of Canterbury and New Zealand Peers QS 2004-2011 Rankings
University of Auckland University of Otago University of Canterbury
SLIDE 6
- UC has ranked consistently in the Top 500 universities
worldwide overall:
- ARWU 401‐500 (2011)
- QS‐US News 212 (2011‐12)
- THE‐TR 301‐350 (2011‐12)
- THE‐TR’s methodology appears to treat UC differently than the
past THE‐QS (now QS‐US News) methodology
- Webometrics results are interesting, too (rank 449, as of
January 2012):
- Rich files 790 (was 830 in 2011)
- Visibility 644 (was 638 in 2011)
- Scholar 349 (was 155 in 2011)
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
An Institutional View on Past Rankings Performance
Do these rankings do UC’s academic performance justice, and how can UC improve its rankings performance?
SLIDE 7
Source: GeoNet, 2011.
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
Number 1 in Earthquakes
SLIDE 8
- UC faces a number of challenges going forward
- Multiple local impact issues due to the series of earthquakes
- Budget cuts owing to a loss of enrollments
- Recruiting challenges
- UC’s rankings positions are an important aspect of
communicating UC’s academic strength and value proposition to the outside world
- The Rankings Project was conceived as a small scale, enabling
project
- Research (rankings, dynamics)
- Educate (internal stakeholders)
- Professionalize (response approach and feedback loops)
- Communicate (internally as well as externally)
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
The Rankings Strategy Project
A holistic approach
SLIDE 9
- External perspectives
- The structural appeal of rankings to stakeholders (e.g.
students, parents, agents, media, policy‐makers, etc.)
- The (growing) impact of rankings on stakeholder behavior
(e.g. employers , scholarship agencies)
- Belief systems and views held by influencers in the higher
education community
- The development trajectory and scope of major rankings
- Internal perspectives
- Ownership of rankings (administration, academics)
- Communication flow (into and within UC)
- Data gathering and preparation (within UC)
- Process improvement (within UC, and externally)
- Feedback loops (use rankings for internal improvements)
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
Strategic Perspectives
The nature and impact of rankings continues to be less well understood than often believed
SLIDE 10
- External limitations and challenges
- Some rankings are highly technical (e.g. Webometrics) and
thus measure highly specific technical aspects
- Some rankings focus on specific attributes (e.g. ARWU) and
thus may not capture the overall academic performance of UC
- UC’s remoteness negatively impacts its performance in
surveys which are based on familiarity/network‐effects (despite UC’s well developed academic relationships)
- Internal limitations and challenges
- No desire to “manipulate” rankings
- Buy‐in across the organization
- Lack of resources to create strong performance push (and
need challenge to overcome damage from earthquakes)
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY
Limitations and Challenges on Rankings Strategies
No ranking really captures the UC experience and value added to students
SLIDE 11
- UC will become more strategic in its rankings behavior
- Despite this behavioral change, it is unlikely that notable
changes in UC’s rankings will take place (in a sense, this is just keeping up with other institutions doing the same)
- UC will suffer in rankings’ categories which rely on certain ratios
(international students ratios, etc.) owing to post‐earthquake enrollment losses
- UC should do better (be more proactive) with regard to rankings