WORLD CLASS
UNIVERSITIES
Megawati Santoso
Direktorat Kelembagaan
DITJEN DIKTI
May-2007
1
REFERENCES



The Workshop of the International
Education (8-9 November 2006)
Works of World Class University Team
formed by Minister of National Education
(2006)
On line search literatures (2007)
2




Rankings Systems (International &
Indonesia) & It’s foundation
Rankings vs quality
Are we going world class?
How do we start?
3
Ranking Systems






Shanghai Jiaotong University (SJTU)
Times Higher Education Supplement
(THES)
US News & World Report
CHE/DAAD in Germany
Webomatrics
Many others sprouting (200 USA, 4ICU)
4
Prof. Nian Cai LIU
Leader of the Shanghai Ranking
Group
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, P.R. of China
Prof. Detlef Müller-Böling
Director of the Center for Higher Education
Development CHE
Gütersloh, Germany
Dr. Jan Sadlak
Director of the European Center for Higher
Education CEPES, UNESCO,
Bucharest Romania
Mr. Martin Ince
Commissioning Editor
Times Higher Education Supplement
5
THES, London,
UK
INDONESIA CRITERIA




Kriteria Majelis Penelitian Untuk Tolok Ukur
Penelitian
Kriteria Direktorat Kelembagaan Untuk Tolok
Ukur Kesehatan Organisasi, Output, Outcome
Kriteria Mutu Untuk Tingkat Institusi (Tpsdp,
Imhere, Phk, Grantees)
Kriteria Mutu Untuk Tingkat Program Studi
(Tpsdp, Imhere, Phk, Grantees)
Dan menambahkan kriteria baru:

Kriteria Kemanfaatan Pt Bagi Bangsa
6
Ranking System Fondations





Needs of valuable Scientific researches
Expansion of Worldwide R&D activities
The number and intensity of student and
researcher exchange programs, international
collaboration, and working stays outside the
own country
The strong demand for accountability, evidence
of quality, and ‘value for money’.
Increasing competition for financial support and
for the best students and researchers between
universities within nations and worldwide.
7
Ranking System Fondations


Universities strive for belonging to the top of
their country, or even to the world top. This
implies the existence of some kind of a league
(a national one, or an international one), to
which one can only be admitted on the basis of
performance.
The higher the performance, the better
chances a university has to become a member
of an elite league and to reach a high ranking
position in this league. Clearly, the basic
question is: How can we identify the best
universities in the world?
8
Ranking VS Quality

SJTU
Quality of Education: alumni with awards
 Quality of Academics: academics with awards
 Research Output: bibliometric data & citations
 Size: output related to size


THES
Peer review (40%), recruiter review (10%)
 Int’l faculty & students (10%)
 Staff:Student ratio (20%)
 Citations by faculty (20%) – size adjusted

9
Ranking VS Quality

Webomatrics
“ PageRank relies on the uniquely
democratic nature of the web by
using its vast link structure as an
indicator of an individual page's
value. In essence, Google
interprets a link from page A to
page B as a vote, by page A, for
page B. But, Google looks at
more than the sheer volume of
votes, or links a page receives; it
also analyzes the page that casts
the vote. Votes cast by pages that
are themselves "important" weigh
more heavily and help to make
other pages "important".
10
”
Ranking VS Quality

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Top 200 USA
Peer assess- ment score (5.0=highest)
Average freshman retention rate
2005 actual graduation rate
Faculty resources rank
% of classes w/50 or more ('05)
% faculty who are full time ('05)
SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile ('05)
Acceptance rate ('05)
Alumni giving rank
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Graduation & retention rank
2005 predicted graduation rate
2005 overperf.(+)/ underperf.(-)
% of classes w/fewer than 20 ('05)
Student/ faculty ratio ('05)
Selectivity rank
Freshmen in top 10% of HS class
Financial resources rank
Avg. alumni giving rate
11
Ranking VS Quality
•4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking methodology
Universities and Colleges are sorted by our exclusive 4icu.org Web
Popularity Ranking.
The ranking is based upon an algorithm including three unbiased and
independent web metrics: Google Page Rank, total number of inbound
links and Alexa Traffic Rank.
The aim of this website is to provide an approximate and relative
popularity index of world-wide Universities and Colleges based upon
the popularity of their website. This can especially help international
students to understand how popular a specific University or College is
in a foreign country.
We do not, by any means, claim to rank organisations, or their
programs, by the quality of education or level of services provided.
12

THES
Criteria
Research
Quality
Graduate
Employability
International
Outlook
Teaching
Quality
Ranking VS Quality
Indicator
Peer Review
Citations per
Faculty
Recruiter
Review
International
Faculty
International
Students
Student
Faculty
Brief Description
Composite score drawn from peer review
(which is divided into five subject areas).
3,703 responses from 190.000 respondents.
Score based on research performance
factored against the size of the research body
Score based on responses to recruiter survey.
738 responses
Score based on proportion of international
faculty
Score based on proportion of international
students
Weight*
Score based on student/faculty ratio
20%
40%
20%
10%
5%
5%
UI = 250; ITB = 258; UGM = 270; UNDIP = 495
13
WEBOMATRICS
14
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
73
74
75
80
84
85
86
89
90
100
UNIVERSITY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY
KEIO UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO
BEIJING UNIVERSITY
CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY
TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY CHINA
SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA
HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BANDUNG
BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY
HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY
TONGJI UNIVERSITY
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR
TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
MEIJI UNIVERSITY
GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY
world R
139
150
152
157
190
216
218
239
300
336
337
338
362
927
934
937
982
1,009
1,011
1,018
1,025
1,032
15
1,076
ARE WE
GOING
WORLD
CLASS?
16
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?
The Costs and Benefits of World-Class Universities
By Philip G. Altbach


The dictionary defines world class as "ranking
among the foremost in the world; of an
international standard of excellence."
Fair enough, but in higher education, who
decides? The following characteristics have by
no means been agreed upon by teams of
experts—they are meant simply as benchmarks
to provide the basis for debate and analysis.
17
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?

John D. Rockefeller once asked Charles W. Eliot,
president of Harvard University for almost forty years in
the late nineteenth century, what it would take to create
the equivalent of a world-class university. Eliot
responded that it would require $50 million and two
hundred years. He was wrong. At the beginning of the
twentieth century, the University of Chicago became a
world-class institution in two decades for slightly more
than $50 million—donated by Rockefeller himself. The
price tag for such an endeavor has ballooned since then,
not only because of inflation but also because of the
increased complexity and cost of academic institutions
today. The competition has also become much fiercer.
Now, it might take more than $500 million along with
clever leadership and much good luck.
18
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?


Excellence in research underpins the idea
of world class—research that is recognized
by peers and that pushes back the
frontiers of knowledge.
Academic freedom and an atmosphere of
intellectual excitement are also central to
a world-class university.
19
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?


The governance of the institution is very
important. World-class universities have a
significant measure of internal self-governance
and an entrenched tradition, often buttressed
by statutes, ensuring that the academic
community has control over the central
elements of academic life—the admission of
students, the curriculum, the criteria for the
award of degrees, the selection of new
members of the professoriate, and the basic
direction of the academic work of the
institution.
Adequate facilities for academic work are
essential
20
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?


Adequate funding must be available to support
the university's research and teaching as well as
its other functions, and the support must be
consistent and long term.
Funding is a special challenge now, because
governments in many countries are disinvesting
in higher education. Academic institutions are
everywhere asked to pay for an increasing part
of their budgets through tuition and student
fees, funds raised by consulting and selling
research-based products, and other revenuegenerating activities.
21
ARE WE GOING WORLD CLASS?
IN CONCLUSION:

Research universities have the ability to raise
significant funds through various means, but no
substitute exists for consistent and substantial
public financial support. Without it, developing
and sustaining world-class universities is
impossible.
HOW IS PUBLIC SUPPORT US:
When we deliver quality of education
22
23
How do we start?


DGHE has set the 2010 vision for higher
education in Indonesia in which QUALITY
has been the first focus that national
higher education institutions in Indonesia
must be working on
Internationalization of higher education is
believed to be one among the ways that
can lead a higher education institution to
achieve quality
24
Internationalisation

“Way of thinking and acting not
constrained by national boundaries or
traditions and which actively seeks
inspiration, understanding, and input
from outside (Indonesia)”
-paraphrased from 1999 Monash U. annual plan, cited by
Grant McBurnie in “Pursuing Internationalization…”
25
What is the goal?

Comprehensive internationalization of the
university?

“World class” university?

Systematic steps toward excellence?
26
International Positioning




How our target group sees us in relation
to your competition
It is about the students’ perception of us
The defining characteristics of our
university have placed us where we are
now
Mismatch (?) between how we see ourself
and how our prospective students see us
27
Positioning – parameters (PQSDP)

Pricing


Quality


what’s that ?
Distribution


what is the prospective student’s perception of your quality ?
Service & Support


luxury, quality, good value, low value, cheaper, cheapest
transnational delivery, local consumption, e-delivery
Packaging

your environment and your presentation
28
Where to start?





Within region (Malaysia, Thailand,
Vietnam, China, Korea, Japan)
Short-term group study abroad (facultyled)
Reciprocal exchanges (summer/semester)
Collaborations through research centers
Join/establish consortia
29
Category
Forms and Conditions of M obility
People
Students
Professors/scholars
Researchers/
Experts/consultants
Programs
Course, program
sub-degree, degree,
post graduate
Providers
Institutions
Organizations
Companies
Projects
Academic projects
Services
Development
Educational
Com mercial
Cooperation
Linkages
Trade
Semester/year abroad
Full degrees
Field/research work
Internships
Sabbaticals
Consulting
Twinning
Franchised
Articulated/ Validated
Joint/Double Award
Online/Distance
Branch Campus
Virtual University
M erger/Acquisition
Independent Institutions
Research
Curriculum
Capacity Building
Educational services
Source: Jane Knight, 2006
30
It can be concluded…


There are many definitions and meanings on
Internationalization of Higher Education, but
essentially it should contain not only physical
but also non-physical aspects.
To start the internationalization, higher
education institutions must first clearly
define what the motivation is, and they must
have internationalization statement that is
agreed and consistently followed up by the
top management of the universities
31


To be in the ranking list is important but it
does not mean everything (It does not
mean that our university is out of the
quality) But the most important thing is
how to continuously improve tha quality of
all aspect of education
Accreditation has proved to give good
motivational effect for institutions, and to
get more positive respond from public and
that Accreditation does not mean
automatic comparison, even locally
32

International standard could be achieved
through continual development of, among
others:





Flourishing research culture
Increase the use of English
Increase the productivity of existing agreements
with foreign universities
Build up and make use of the existing linkages
with other stake holders out of the campus
especially industries and government
Maintain the relationship with alumni as well as
with professional associations
33
DON’T FORGET OUR ROLES
STAKE HOLDERS EXPECTATIONS
(USERS, STUDENTS,
PARENTS, GOVERNM, MANAGEMENT, LECTURES, INSTITUTIONS ETC)
VISSION/ MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION
SOURCE OF
STUDENTS
CANDIDATE
• SECONDARY
SCHOOL
• ETC
USERS
OF GRADUATED
GOALS/ OBJECTIVES
SELECTION
PROCESS
GRADUATE
FACILITIES.
ENVIRONMENT
STUDENTS
LECTURES
•
•
•
•
UNIVERSITY
INDUSTRY
ENTREPRENEUR
ETC
METHODE
MATERIALS
CURRICULUM
REGULATOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION – DIKTI, BAN
YH/STM/PPM/06
34
35
Terima kasih atas kebaikan Bapak dan
Ibu untuk mencerna dan memperkaya
informasi yang disampaikan pagi ini.
36