Constructing National Ranking Methodology: Dilemmas, Choices, and Decisions
One of the current trends of the Russian Higher Education is strengthening participation of HEIs in global higher education. The increasing number of approaches to universities rankings reflects this trend. International and Russian rankings draw close attention and criticism from academic and expert community. Despite the criticism, rankings outcomes are in demand and influence universities’ promotion and their positioning in the global higher education area. Contemporary Russian rankings systems are diverse and strive to satisfy needs of various stakeholders. However, all these approaches are single dimensional rankings that use a composite indicator and weight coefficients. The presented article describes development of a multidimensional ranking system in Russia. This work has been done in the framework of the project “Developing and Approbating a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions” implemented by NTF (2011 – 2013). The authors demonstrate deficiency of league tables; prove relevancy of a chosen approach as it considers complexity and differentiation of the Russian Higher Education system, its current modernization, missions and diversity of the Russian HEIs. Drawn on the project outcomes, the authors present development of the national multidimensional ranking methodology: its concept, choice of indicators, the approbation outcomes, dilemmas and decisions.
The paper covers the issues of accountability of higher education institutions (HEIs) in five countries: Brazil, Canada, Italy, Portugal, and Russia1 . National frameworks and their implementation are examined. The special focus of the review is performance-based evaluation and funding. The reflection on outcomes is followed by the recommendations to policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”.
In the article is presented the analysis of university endowments organization, highlighting the main parts of the organization and theories of the functioning (flows) on the basis of a systematic approach of strategic management developed by Henry Mintzberg. Endowment fund activities are structured by synchronizing activities of the three organizations: the university, the endowment fund and the investment company.
The paper illustrates capabilities of a new statistical tool developed for comprehensive in-depth quantitative analysis of research and innovation activity of Russian higher education institutions (HEIs). The results of such analysis are applicable for planning, coordination, and control of addressed public polices in S&T and innovation. The novelty of the approach and its implications to official statistics is explained by critical review of existing standard statistical tools for monitoring HEI potential and activities. The review is followed by detailed description of new methodology. The main part of the paper provides descriptive statistics based on the experimental tool as well as conclusions on application of these results for more in-depth analysis and for policy advise to Russian S&T and innovation policy-makers.
anotation to the book is not available
In this paper, we discuss the methods of endowment management existing in the world and their applicability to the Russian university system. The endowment spending research focuses on the following issues: reinvesting endowment income; identifying the size of expendable endowment income; using the endowment body, not onlyincome; choosing endowment spending policy, rule and rate endowments, etc. We provide an overview of endowment fund financial indicators and endowment spending allocationin Russia. Based on the example of the HSE Endowment Fund, we analyze the use of endowment spending rulesand model of financial indicators for 2008–2014. The University’s Endowment Fund endowment spending policies implement the preservation principle, which may be reasonable in a stable economy. However, the viability of the principle is questionable in the crisis, the more so since the endowment is mostly in rubles. Using net asset valuation methods, the HSE Endowment Fund could provide equity betweengenerations with annual distribution of income in favor of the next and current generations.
This paper considers how to analyze the performance indicators of universities. The data of this study comes from Russian National Research Universities' statements that are available in open access on official web sites. The main purpose of this study is to define via factor analysis the most important indicators for ranking and performance auditing behind the constellations of performance measures. For this purposes Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Then we conducted factor analysis by using the extraction method with principal component analysis to choose the main factors for rating and performance auditing. We suggest using the factor analysis result for evaluation of an auditee.
Institutions affect investment decisions, including investments in human capital. Hence institutions are relevant for the allocation of talent. Good market-supporting institutions attract talent to productive value-creating activities, whereas poor ones raise the appeal of rent-seeking. We propose a theoretical model that predicts that more talented individuals are particularly sensitive in their career choices to the quality of institutions, and test these predictions on a sample of around 95 countries of the world. We find a strong positive association between the quality of institutions and graduation of college and university students in science, and an even stronger negative correlation with graduation in law. Our findings are robust to various specifications of empirical models, including smaller samples of former colonies and transition countries. The quality of human capital makes the distinction between educational choices under strong and weak institutions particularly sharp. We show that the allocation of talent is an important link between institutions and growth.