Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recently there is increasing interest in university rankings. Annual rankings of world universities are published by QS for the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Higher Education and Accreditation Council of Taiwan and rankings based on Web visibility by the Cybermetrics Lab at CSIC. In this paper we compare the rankings using a set of similarity measures. For the rankings that are being published for a number of years we also examine longitudinal patterns. The rankings limited to European universities are compared to the ranking of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University. The findings show that there are reasonable similarities between the rankings, even though each applies a different methodology. The biggest differences are between the rankings provided by the QS-Times Higher Education Supplement and the Ranking Web of the CSIC Cybermetrics Lab. The highest similarities were observed between the Taiwanese and the Leiden rankings from European universities. Overall the similarities are increased when the comparison is limited to the European universities.

The paper reviews Asia-Pacific higher education and university research, focusing principally on the \"Confucian\" education nations Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong China, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Except for Vietnam, these systems exhibit a special developmental dynamism-still playing out everywhere except Japan-and have created a distinctive model of higher education more effective in some respects than systems in North America, the English-speaking world and Europe where the modern university was incubated. The Confucian Model rests on four interdependent elements: (1) strong nation-state shaping of structures, funding and priorities; (2) a tendency to universal tertiary participation, partly financed by growing levels of household funding of tuition, sustained by a private duty, grounded in Confucian values, to invest in education; (3) \"one chance\" national examinations that mediate social competition and university hierarchy and focus family commitments to education; (4) accelerated public investment in research and \"world-class' universities. The Model has downsides for social equity in participation, and in the potential for state interference in executive autonomy and academic creativity. But together with economic growth amid low tax regimes, the Confucian Model enables these systems to move forward rapidly and simultaneously in relation to each and all of mass tertiary participation, university quality, and research quantity and quality. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

The discrepancies among various global university rankings derive us to compare and correlate their results. Thus, the 2015 results of six major global rankings are collected, compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using both ranking orders and scores of the top 100 universities. The selected six global rankings include: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS), Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE), US News & World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR), National Taiwan University Ranking (NTU), and University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Two indexes are used for comparison namely, the number of overlapping universities and Pearson’s/Spearman’s correlation coefficients between each pair of the studied six global rankings. The study is extended to investigate the intra-correlation of ARWU results of the top 100 universities over a 5-year period (2011–2015) as well as investigation of the correlation of ARWU overall score with its single indicators. The ranking results limited to 49 universities appeared in the top 100 in all six rankings are compared and discussed. With a careful analysis of the key performance indicators of these 49 universities one can easily define the common features for a world-class university. The findings indicate that although each ranking system applies a different methodology, there are from a moderate to high correlations among the studied six rankings. To see how the correlation behaves at different levels, the correlations are also conducted for the top 50 and the top 200 universities. The comparison indicates that the degree of correlation and the overlapping universities increase with an increase in the list length. The results of URAP and NTU show the strongest correlation among the studied rankings. Shortly, careful understanding of various ranking methodologies are of utmost importance before analysis, interpretation and usage of ranking results. The findings of the present study could inform policy makers at various levels to develop policies aiming to improve performance and thereby enhance the ranking position.

In the last few decades, the growth of gross enrolment ratios in higher education in the Asia and Pacific region reveals an increasing level of economic, social and political confidence within the region. The consistent and enhanced performances of higher education systems in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Malaysia and Taiwan are revealed clearly by different global university league tables, such as QS, Times Higher Education and Shanghai Jiao Tong University Ranking. Many governments in Asia believe investing in higher education would enhance their national competitiveness in the global marketplace. Therefore, different public policy measures have been adopted to engage not only the public sector but also the private sector to create more higher education opportunities, which has resulted in the massification of higher education. With a strong belief that higher education investments would bring good returns to both individuals and the nation, governments and families, individuals in Mainland China and Taiwan have followed the similar trends outlined above. An increasing number of individuals have sought education overseas with the confidence that it would bring them positive returns and enhance their job search and career developments after they have obtained degrees from foreign universities. This article sets out against this sociopolitical context to conduct a critical examination of how students from Mainland China and Taiwan who have graduated from UK universities evaluate the effects of overseas studies on their job search and career development. More specifically, this article reflects critically upon the value of international learning against the growing wave of anti-globalism and heated debates that question the value of the internationalisation of higher education.

Since the mid-1990s, the pressure of globalization and the pressing demands of a knowledge economy led to a series of educational reforms. The focus of these was the promotion of quality education and massification of higher education. After the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the governments in different parts of Asia have implemented comprehensive reforms to their higher education systems in order to enhance their global competiveness. Confronted with increasing pressure for global university ranking, governments and universities in Asia have tried to adopt different strategies in terms of special funding schemes, and different forms of measures in shaping teaching, learning and research activities to enhance their global ranking. This article sets out against the context briefly outlined above to highlight major higher education transformations for global competitiveness, with particular reference to discuss policy responses, social consequences, and impact on the academic profession in Asia especially when major attention is geared towards the quest for global university ranking among universities in Asia. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

This study aims to construct ranking indicators from the perspective inside of the university and shift the ranking target from overall university quality to undergraduate education quality. In dealing with the complexity of the concept of undergraduate education quality, two-stage questionnaire survey was conducted to gain comprehensive opinions from 20 higher education evaluation experts. The Fuzzy Delphi Method then was introduced to perform data analysis and help final indicator selection as well as the distribution of weights. The results compared with ranking systems conducted by US NEWS and Guardian showed weighting differences and greater comprehensiveness in terms of the types of measures, sources of data and different perspectives from the students, employers and the academics. Most important of all, this study provided a more transparent ranking system and detailed ranking methodology that are crucial for users' understanding and use of the ranking system. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).

This article presents a methodology for calculating the aggregate global university ranking (Aggregated Global University Ranking (AGUR), which consists of an automated presentation of the comparable lists of names for different universities from particular global university rankings (using Machine Learning and Mining Data algorithms) and a simple procedure of aggregating particular global university rankings (summing up the university ranking positions from different particular rankings and their subsequent ranking). The second procedure makes it possible to bring lists of universities from particular rankings, which are nonidentical by length, to one size. This article includes a sample AGUR for six particular global university rankings as of 2013, as well as cross-correlation matrices and intersection matrices for AGUR for 2011-2013, all created by means of using the Python-based software.

For a long time, rankings overused in evaluating Chinese universities’ research performance. The relationship between research production and research quality hasn’t been taken seriously in ranking systems. Most university rankings in China put more weight on research production rather than research quality. Recently, the developmental strategy of Chinese universities has shifted from ‘quantity’ to ‘quality’. As a result, a two-dimensional approach was developed in this article to balance ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’. The research production index and the research quality index were produced to locate research universities (RU) from Mainland China, Hong Kong (HK) and Taiwan (TW) in the two-dimensional graph. Fifty-nine RU were classified into three categories according to their locations, which indicated the relevant level of research performance. University of Hong Kong, National Taiwan University, Tsing Hua University and Peking University appeared to be leading universities in research performance. The result showed that the mainland universities were generally of higher research production and lower research quality than HK and TW universities, and proved that the merging tides of Chinese universities enlarged their research production while causing a low level of research quality as well.

The increasing importance of the competition in global university ranking has resulted in a paradigm shift in academic governance in East Asia. Many governments have introduced different strategies for benchmarking their leading universities to facilitate global competitiveness and international visibility. A major trend in the changing university governance is the emergence of a regulatory evaluation scheme for faculty research productivity, reflected by the striking features of the recent changing academic profile of publication norms and forms that go beyond the territories of nation-states in the East and West. With the expansion of the Taiwanese higher education system in the last two decades, the maintenance of quality to meet the requirements for international competitiveness has become a key concern for policy makers. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education has introduced a series of university governance policies to enhance academic excellence in universities and established a formal university evaluation policy to improve the competitiveness and international visibility of Taiwanese universities. In so doing, the government has legalized a clear link between evaluation results and public funding allocation. Research performance is assessed in terms of the number of articles published in journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and in terms of citation rates and associated factors. Therefore, evaluation has taken on a highly quantitative dimension. Despite the efforts of concerned parties to encourage academic excellence, the abovementioned quantitative evaluation indicators have resulted in bitter complaints from the humanities and social sciences, whose research accomplishments are devalued and ignored by the current quantitative indicators. In this paper, the authors describe the recent petition for collective action initiated by university faculty to protest the privileging of SSCI and SCI publications as critical indicators for academic performance regardless of faculty discipline and specialization. The article concludes its argument with a group petition calling for more diverse and reliable indicators in recognizing the research of different natures and disciplines while creating culturally responsive evaluation criteria for social sciences and humanities in the Taiwanese academe. The article not only sheds light on academic evaluation literature, especially on the uncertain paradox of globalization and market economy, but also proposes alternatives to the evaluation system for humanities and social sciences in higher education.