DIVERSITY, RANKINGS AND COMPETITION IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
ARE THEY COMPLEMENTARY OR IN CONFLICT?
Julita Jabłecka
Warsaw University
Konferencja
DRIVERS FROM HIGHER TO QUALITY EDUCATION, Warszaw 18-19 june
Plan of presentation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Higher education context.
Forms of diversity and their meaning for
university rank as superior quality
External determinants of diversity changes in
higher education
Competition, autonomy and rankings
Basic factors of outstanding world class
university
Polish HE system. Is any chance for HEIS to
achieve high position in global rankings?
Context
Trends in higher education
environment:
Globalization, international competition in
economy, research and higher education
 Knowledge base economy- the role of high
quality specialists, and innovations:
 Demands to HE:
 Diversity: increased (universal?) access to higher
education versus emergence of elite universities
with excellent research quality and productivity

◦ Competition and autonomy
Diversity in HE:
(Birnbaum1983, Huisman, 1995, 2000, Meek, Goedegebuure, Kivinen,
Rinne 1996,Van Vught, Reichert 2009).
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
1. allows to meet students’ needs
2. provide opportunities for social mobility
3. meet the needs of different labor markets
(with an increasing variety of specialisations)
4. serve the political needs of interest
groups
5. permit the combination of elite and mass
higher education
Diversity allows to: (cont.)
◦ 6. increase the level of higher education
institutions’ effectiveness (cf. Carnegie
Commission 1973)
◦ 7. offer opportunities for experimenting with
innovation in a few institutions thus limiting
the high risks connected to the failure of such
an experiment
1.8. permit to concentrate rather on
undergraduate on education or graduate edu
and research/knowledge creation (jabłecka)
(underlined are important for emergence of highest class HEIs and –as a
consequence- ranked universities)
Three main forms of diversity:
External (between HEIs) versus
internal (within HEIs)
 horizontal (different missions, type
of HEIs) versus vertical (I, II, III level
of education)
 Formal ( education level) versus
informal (reputation)

Categories of diversity
Birnbaum (1983) a za nim kilku kolejnych autorów (Fairweather 2000 Goedegebuure &
Meek 1997 oraz Meek 2000)




1 systemic (institutional type, size,
control)
2 structural (resulting from historical
and legal foundations),
3 programmatic (degree level, degree
area, comprehensiveness of mission)
4 procedural( in the ways that
teaching, research and /or services are
provided
Categories of diversity cont.
5 reputational (based on status and
prestige);
 6 constituential (in students, faculty,
administration);
 7 values and climate (in social
environment & culture).


(1,3,5 and 7 categories important for emergence world
class ranked University)
Diversity-ranking relations
Combination of systemic (type),
programatic (mission), values and climate
(high quality culture) and reputational
/quality diversity are favorable for
emergence of elite research HEIs
 Emergence of elite HEIs is a condition of
receiving high ranking position
 High ranking position leads to encrease of
prestige/reputation

Drivers of differentiation/ de-differentiation in HE
(from theoretical and empirical literature)
1.
Izomorfizm (normative)- professioonalism,
common norms & values- academic drift (less
prestigious institutions emulate leaders).
Van Vught (2008): the larger the influence of
academic norms and values in HEI, the lower
the diversity in HE system
Competition
2.1. for students, financial resources, faculty
may increase diversity (specialised profile)
2.
Drivers of de/-differentiation cont.
2.2. Competition for prestige: negative and positive
consequences
1.To be high prestige institutions requires more
selected, more excellent (expensive) faculty and
students, more expensive infrastructure- resulting in
increasing cost
2. if public resources are limited- there is intensive
competition, selection and concentration of public
funding.
3.In competiton for prestige wealth institutions have
more resources to attract the best faculty and
students and increase their advantage
4. Both financial and reputation concentration lead to
decreasing horizontal (mission) diversity and to
increasing informal vertical diversity (better and
worse)
EXTERNAL (FORMAL) CONTEXT
ENCANCE/INHIBIT DIFFERENTIATION
1. LEGAL REGULATIONS



ENHANCE D. IF INSTITUTIONAL TYPES ARE
FIRMLY ESTABLISH, NOT TRANSFER BETWEEN IS
ALLOWED
ENABLE HOMOGENZATION IF TRANSFER
BETWEEN TYPES OF HEIs IS POSSIBLE UNDER SOME
CONDITIONS
ENHANCE HOMOGENIZATION IF NO FORMAL
DIFFERENCES OF INSTITUTIONAL TYPES
EXTERNAL (FORMAL) CONTEXT
ENCANCE/INHIBIT DIFFERENTIATION, cont.
2.FUNDING OF HEIs
2.1. WHEN
DIVERSIFIED MECHANISMS/CRITERIA, AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS ACCORDING TO TYPES, CONTROL, OR
PROFILE
MORE FUNDING SOURCES
SEVERE COMPETITION: GRANTS, OTHER
RESEARCHPROJECTS (WINNERS/LOOSERS)- EFFECT:INCREASED DIVERSITY, INCREASED POLARISATION,
CONCENTRATION OF FUNDS
2.2. WHEN
UNIFIED FUNDING CRITERIA, FUNDS FOR ALL
INSTITUTIONS
NON-COMPETITIVE FUNDINGEFFECT: DECREASING DIVERSITY
EXTERNAL (FORMAL) CONTEXT
ENCANCE/INHIBIT DIFFERENTIATION cont.
3. ACCREDITATION SYSTEMS AND CRITERIA
OF QUALITY ASSURANCE:
IF UNIFIED- HOMOGENIZATION
IF DIVERSIFIED- MAINTAINING DIVERSITY
EXTERNAL (FORMAL) CONTEXT
ENCANCE/INHIBIT DIFFERENTIATION
Increase of institutional
autonomy allows for
emulation of successful
prestigious HEIs (academic
drift): decreasing diversity
Competition, autonomy and chance for a better
position in rankings
Aghion et al. (2008): Research in the USA and several european countries
1. University autonomy and competition positively correlated
with output measured with index of indicators from shanghai
ranking and number of patents

explanation
2. Governments do not know which research is on the frontier
of knowledge, and the most promissing so they establish
quasi-competition for research money between HEIs. HEIS
enjoing autonomy are able to make a better use from the
competition
3. The authors analyzed such autonomy dimensions as:
institutional autonomy to determine educational prcurricula,
selection of students, faculty selection, determining the level
and diversifying wages of faculty on the same positions.
Freedom in budgetary matters, a share of government basic
institutional grants and grants in research revenues.
Key characteristics of World class
universities (Alden i Lin 2004, cyt. za Salmi 2008)
I divided 23 features into 4 groups:
Potencial (strategic capacity)
 Strategic directions,
 Output
 Outcome


For Polish elite universities: measures +++ very high ++
high + low

0 =0
1. Potencial (strategic capacity)

Atracting the most able students (undergrad.++

Attracting and retaining the best staff +

Możliwości przyciągania studentów i kadry na
rynku międzynarodowym0

Attracting a high proportion of posgrad.
Students taught and research 0
Potencial (strategic capacity) cont.

Has a very sound financial base 0

Receives high endowment capital and income 0
Has diversified sources of income (gov,. private
comp., research income, intern students fees +0
 Provides a high quality and supportive R+edu.
Environment for staff and students 0


Has a first class management team with
strategic vision and implementation plans 0
2. Strategy, strategic areas
Identifies and builds on its research strenghts
and has a distinctive reputation nad focus on its
lead subjects 0
 Operaties within global market and is
international in many activities – research links,
student and staff exchange, throughput of
visitors of international standing 0
 Continually benchmarks with top universities
and departments worldwide0/+

Strategy, strategic areas cont.

Has the confidence to set its own agenda ++

Has a number of world class departments (not
neccessarily all) +/0

Has a number of research stars and world
leaders in their fields 0
Output

Generates innovative ideas and produces basic
and applied research in abundance 0/+
Produces path breaking research output
recognized by peers e.g. nobel prise Winners 0
 Produces graduates who end up with positions of
influence and/ ora power i.e. movers and shakers,
e.g. Prime Ministers and presidents 0/+

4. Outcomes

International reputation for its research 0/+

International reputation for its teaching 0

It is recognized not only by other world class
universites but also outside the world of HE 0

Makes a big contribution to society and our times 0
Conditions for emergence of candidates for
ranking positions of Polish HEIs
Systemic diversity and elite HEIs : system
inherited from communism (narrow HEIs
profile), plus formal diversification (by law
2005) into different profiles and levels of
education based on number of professors
introduces (practically) vertical stratification.
Possible transfer between categories=
stimulates academic drift

No elite universities involved in research and
advanced teaching on II, and III level of education
Conditions for emergence of candidates for
ranking positions of Polish HEIs cont.
Values norms and organizational climate
rather uniform: strong academic norms (path
dependent) especially in old pestigious
universities, basic reasearch, autonomy ,
collegiality : inhibiting radical restructuring
 Funding: majority of HE and research funding
from government
 Institutional formula (mostly imput) funding based
on lump-sum grants
 Tuition fees dominate in private sector and are
charged in public sector for part-time studies

Conditions for emergence of candidates for
ranking positions of Polish HEIs cont.
Research funding –majority of funding (50-75%)
through institutional performance funding (low
competitiveness due to construction of funding
formula and criteria). All public HEIs receive
such funding and several private HEIs but
generally private sector HEIs are not eligibledo not fulfill requirements.
 Project funding is competitive but its share in
research funding has been between 15-20 % in
1990-2009.

Conditions for emergence of candidates for
ranking positions of Polish HEIs cont.

About 140 HEIs formally combine educational
and research function

Organizational diversity: managerial model of
governance, exist only in private sector, attemps
to set up strategy is the latest phenomenon
Autonomy and competition- do
they exist and how they are used
in Polish HE.
Dimensions of institutional autonomy:
1.
Determining curricula- limited by uniform standards
of education , tendency to offering the most popular
programs instead of institutional and program
speclialization (unique programs)
2.
Selection of students: almost exclusively based on
degrees of diploma from high schools, but for private
HEIs and part-time public education- no selection.
Between I and II level of education- seldom any
sdelection
Autonomy and competition in
Polish HE cont.
3.
Faculty selection- nominally contst for a
position, in practice do not work properly. Inbreeding and lack of interuniversity mobility.
Employing own PHD holders is a rule
4.
Financial autonomy of spending- full
5.
A share of noncompetitive funding- such
funds dominate, share of competitive funding
of research projects makies up 15-20 %.
Conclusions
1.
2.
In Poland both external and internal
conditions are not favorable for
emergence of elite international
universities
2. Key features of international class
universities are difficult to find in Polish
HEIs.
DZIĘKUJĘ ZA UWAGĘ
Thank you for your attention