Academic rankings: an approach to a Portuguese ranking
AbstractThe 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 17297.
Date of creation: 31 Aug 2009
Date of revision:
Academic rankings; CHE; higher education; performance evaluation; Portugal; Shanghai; THES;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
- I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education and Research Institutions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-09-19 (All new papers)
- NEP-EDU-2009-09-19 (Education)
- NEP-LAB-2009-09-19 (Labour Economics)
- NEP-SOG-2009-09-19 (Sociology of Economics)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statistics
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.