Remaking the Social. New Risks and Solidarities

The First International Conference of the Society of Sociologists from Romania

Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, “Babeş-Bolyai” University Cluj-Napoca

2-4 December, 2010

Thematic session: Eleven years after Bologna: reform or crisis escalation?

Convener: Adrian Hatos, University of Oradea; Bogdan Voicu, Quality of Life Research

Institute – ICCV

Conference paper. Do not quote without author’s permission

Academic Rankings. The Competition for Recognition. Case Study:

Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

Teodora Capota Babeş-Bolyai University

Abstract

In the last years, higher education in Romania is facing profound changes especially due

to the Bologna process reforms. The link between social expectations, public resources for higher

education and the uncertain economical environment underlines current and emerging issues of

higher education institutions such as the alteration of academic degrees value. Moreover, changes

both within and outside the higher education institutions are threatening the nature and makeup of

higher education -its students, faculty, curriculum, and functions. Nevertheless, academics are

trying to offer a strong educational background by setting standards in order to encourage

continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education.

A common sense synonym for a valuable diploma is the prestige of universities. One of

the tools that measure the activity of the institutions is the rank; it provides strong indicators of

impact and prestige of universities, summarizes their global performance, ensures information for

candidate students and scholars, and reflects the commitment to the dissemination of scientific

knowledge.

Although the quality of higher education institutions is rigorously operationalized, in

some cases the relevance of rankings is debatable. The objectives of each ranking might be

slightly different –whilst a global ranking seeks to identify world class universities, contributing

to the global progress of science, society and scholarship, a regional ranking should adapt to the

realities of the region in question. However, interest in rankings amongst Romanian higher

education institutions becomes increasingly visible. Therefore, it can be strongly argued that at

the academic level there is a real competition for recognition.

This paper aims, first, to explore in somewhat general terms what we mean by "academic

rankings", what their major dimensions may be; second, to contrast the Romanian rankings with

its counterparts in international rankings; and finally, to put into discussion the Babeş-Bolyai

University positioning in international and Romanian rankings.

Ranking universities: What for?

―This [..] will be an invaluable tool for you if you are bright, well educated, and aiming

for a successful career after university, or, if you are a parent wanting to give your son or

daughter an edge in his or her choice of university study‖ –is the statement made by the one of

the most publicized rankings of the world’s authors1. If we were to summarize the stated purpose,

we would say that rankings are created only to help students choose a ―quality‖ university. But is

that all? In addition to this, De Maret (2007: 36) considers that, in terms of utility, institutional

1 The 4th edition of the Top University Guide 2010, that includes the QS World University Rankings

rankings respond to some other needs such: the needs of scientists to know where to work; the

needs of governments to know where to invest and the needs of university leaders to know where

they stand. Since education has become a core element in a competitive world market, rankings

come to meet the demands of ―costumers‖ about the educational ‖products‖ and scientific

―services‖ offered by higher education institutions (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997); they function as

institutional marketing strategies (Buela-Casal et al., 2007: 350) and often as advertising

instruments; they stimulate competition among HEIs, guide allocations of public funds, help

differentiate among different types of institutions, programs and disciplines and contribute to the

definition of ―quality‖ of HEIs within a particular context (Berlin Principles on Ranking of

Higher Education Institutions, 2006). In the global education market where the customer and the

service provider could be geographically separated, ranks provide a global frame of reference

about the intrinsic value of institutions (Pathak and Pathak, 2010: 167), creating transparency

about the higher education system (Berghoff and Federkeil, 2009: 41). Other approaches

emphasize the fact that rankings are meant simply to feed public appetites for data on

institutional status (Marginson and Van der Wende, 2007: 319). Regardless of the stated (or not)

purposes they serve –continuous improvement, strategic planning, accountability, competitive

marketing, enhancement of performance and productivity promotion of prestige and visibility

(Prolux, 2007: 167)- rankings of higher education institutions have become a global

phenomenon.

The “Winner’s” Approach. Evidence from International Academic Rankings

To be ―the number one‖, ―the best‖ or ―on top‖ seems to represent a desirable attribute for

the players of various fields, including the educational field. For this to be possible, some kind of

a league –a national one, or an international one- to which one can only be admitted based on

performance need to exist, and performance –based listing of research and education or higher

education ranking follow the rules of evaluation. This means that the higher the performance, the

better chance a HEI has to occupy a higher position. Van Raan (2007: 87) considers that reaching

high-ranking positions implies becoming a member of an elite league. In fact, the small fraction

that represents the ―elite league‖ of the stratified higher education landscape has more visibility,

while the large base of the prestige pyramid is relegated more or less to obscurity (Zhao,

2007:323). However, a core feature of rankings is that they make distinction and allocate status

and prestige. But how do they work?

Put simply, university rankings are lists of institutions comparatively ranked according to

a common set of indicators in descending order. However, in a first phase it is important to

determine what to compare and how to assess: if goals or standards are set a priori and one’s

activity or achievements are compared to these goals or standards, we are in a context of absolute

assessment; if one’s performance is compared with that of one’s colleagues, we are in a context

of relative assessment (Vincke, 2009: 12). The ―Shanghai‖ ranking and the ―Times‖ ranking are

based on relative assessment since they report all institution’s performance to the performance of

the first ranked.

The “Shanghai” ranking

The first world ranking of universities was published in 2003 by the Center for World-

Class Universities and the Institute of Higher Education of Shanghai Jiao Tong University,

China, and then updated on an annual basis, the Academic Ranking of World Universities

(ARWU) aimed initially to find the global standing of Chinese top universities. At present, is one

of the internationally recognized academic ranking systems.

Regarding the ranking methodology, a first consideration has to be made on the selection

of universities: ARWU considers every university that has any Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists,

Highly Cited Researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science. In addition, universities with

significant amount of papers indexed by Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) and Social

Science Citation Index (SSCI) are also included. As for the scoring procedures, universities are

ranged by several indicators of academic or research performance; for each indicator, the highest

scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other institutions are calculated as a percentage

of the top score; scores for each indicator are weighted (see Table1.) to arrive at a final overall

score for an institution. The highest scoring institution is assigned a score of 100, and other

institutions are calculated as a percentage of the top score. An institution's rank reflects the

number of institutions that sit above it.

Table 1. Indicators and Weights for ARWU

Criteria Indicator Code Weight

Quality of

Education

Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and

Fields Medal

Alumni 10%

Quality of Faculty

Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and

Fields Medals

Award 20%

Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject

categories

HiCi 20%

Research Output

Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20%

Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded

and Social Science Citation Index

PUB 20%

Per Capita

Performance

Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10%

Total 100%

* For institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of

Economics, N&S is not considered, and the weight of N&S is relocated to other indicators.

Source: http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp#1

The Shanghai index aggregates six different indicators:

Alumni indicates the total number of the alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields

Medals. Different weights are set according to the periods of obtaining degrees as it follows:

100% for alumni obtaining degrees after 1991, 90% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1981-1990,

80% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1971-1980, and so on, and finally 10% for alumni obtaining

degrees in 1901-1910.

Award indicates the total number of the staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes in Physics,

Chemistry, Medicine and Economics and Fields Medal in Mathematics; different weights are set

according to the periods of winning the prizes: the weight is 100% for winners in after 2001, 90%

for winners in 1991-2000, 80% for winners in 1981-1990, 70% for winners in 1971-1980, and so

on, and finally 10% for winners in 1911-1920. If a winner is affiliated with more than one

institution, each institution is assigned the reciprocal of the number of institutions. For Nobel

prizes, if a prize is shared by more than one person, weights are set for winners according to their

proportion of the prize.

HiCi shows the number of highly cited researchers in 21 subject categories2.

N&S indicates the number of papers published in Nature and Science between 2005 and 2009. To

distinguish the order of author affiliation, a weight of 100% is assigned for corresponding author

affiliation, 50% for first author affiliation (second author affiliation if the first author affiliation is

the same as corresponding author affiliation), 25% for the next author affiliation, and 10% for

other author affiliations. Only publications of 'Article' and 'Proceedings Paper' types are

considered.

22 The definition of categories and detailed procedures can be found at the website of Thomson ISI.

PUB designates the total number of papers indexed in Science Citation Index-Expanded and

Social Science Citation Index in 2009. Only publications of 'Article' and 'Proceedings Paper'

types are considered. When calculating the total number of papers of an institution, a special

weight of two was introduced for papers indexed in Social Science Citation Index.

PCP marks the weighted scores of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time

equivalent academic staff. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be

obtained, the weighted scores of the above five indicators is used3.

The “Times” ranking

Times Higher Education first conceived its annual World University Rankings with QS in

2004 by identifying primary missions of world class universities: research quality, graduate

employability, teaching quality and international outlook and then it sought ways of measuring

each of these. In October 2009, QS and THE ended their collaboration under which THE was

licensed to publish the QS results known as ―Times Higher Education (THE) – QS World

University Rankings‖. QS continued to produce its own ranking as the QS World University

Rankings, keeping the methodology of the former THE -QS World University Rankings 2004-

2009 .

QS compiles a multi-index ranking, taking into account the following:

Academic Peer review is a method used to assess academic quality and represents a measure of

the average reputation for research of a given institution among academics in each of five broad

3 For ARWU 2010, the numbers of full-time equivalent academic staff are obtained for institutions in USA, UK,

France, Canada, Japan, Italy, China, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, South Korea, Czech,

Slovenia, New Zealand etc.

subject areas. An international online survey is conducted by asking academics to first identify up

to 30 institutions outside their own country (from a list of institutions in the region (s) they have

selected) and secondly up to 10 from their own country that they consider excellent in each

subject area they have selected4. Since academics are not asked to rank the institutions,

performance is based on the number of occurrences of each institution’s name. Responses are

weighted by region5 and compiled into five separate peer reviews for each of the five subject

areas which are combined with equal weighting to yield the final result.

Citations per faculty results from dividing the citations number (provided by Scopus) by the

number of faculty staff. For the calculation of this indicator, QS gathers two distinct datasets:

total citation count for the last five years and ―Full Time Equivalent‖ (FTE) faculty.

Student faculty ratio has been identified to address the stated objective of evaluating teaching

quality. For the calculation of this indicator, ―Full Time Equivalent‖ (FTE) students and ―Full

Time Equivalent‖ (FTE) faculty are taken into account.

The Recruiter review, as annual online survey, roughly resembles the peer review approach. It

covers the same subject areas and it is operated in a near identical way to a single subject area

peer review. Again, a regional weighting is applied to ensure equal representation from the 3

"super regions" of Americas; Europe, Middle East & Africa and Asia Pacific. Graduate

4 Respondents are asked to identify the subject area (s) with which they have most familiarity from the following:

arts and humanities, life science and biomedicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and engineering and IT.

55 For each subject area a regional weigthing is applied to ensure equal representation from the 3 regions of

Americas; Europe, Middle East & Africa and Asia Pacific.

employers come from a very diverse range of businesses in terms of scope, sector, size and

nature.

International faculty and International students, as scores based on proportions of full time

registered students and faculty that hold an overseas nationality, determine the international

outlook or reputation of higher education institutions.

Weightings are assigned by indicator as set out in Table 2. Prior to 2007, scores for each

indicator were scaled against the top performer on that measure: the leading institution was

awarded 100 and subsequent institutions’ scores scaled against that maximum. From 2007, a

balancing tool has been adopted: z-scores involve subtracting the mean score from each

individual score and then dividing by the standard deviation of the score. The percentile ranks of

the a-scores are then plotted using a standard normal distribution table.

Table 2. QS World University Rankings criteria vs. THE World University Rankings categories

QS World University Rankings THE World University Rankings

Criterion Indicator Weight Category Indicator Weight

Rese

arc

h q

uali

ty Academic Peer

review 40%

60%

Cit

ati

on

-

rese

arc

h

infl

uen

ce

Citation impact (normalized

average citations per paper) 32.5%

Rese

arc

h —

volu

me,

inco

me a

nd

rep

uta

tion

Reputational survey- research

Research income (scaled)

Papers per academic and research

staff

Public research income/ total

research income

19.5%

30%

5.25%

Citations per

faculty

20% 4.5%

0.75%

Teach

ing q

uali

ty

Student faculty

ratio 20%

Teach

ing —

the

learn

ing

en

vir

on

men

t

Reputational survey-teaching

PhD awards per academic

Undergraduates admitted per

academic

Income per academic

PhD awards/ bachelor’s awards

15%

30%

6%

4.5%

2.25%

2.25%

Grad

uate

em

plo

yab

ilit

y

Employer

review 10%

Ind

ust

ry

incom

e-

inn

ovati

on

Research income from industry

(per academic staff)

2.5%

Inte

rn

ati

on

al

ou

tlo

ok

International

faculty 5%

10%

Inte

rn

ati

on

al

mix

-

sta

ff a

nd

stu

den

ts

Ratio of international to domestic

staff

3%

5%

International

students 5%

Ratio of international to domestic

students

2%

Total 100% Total 100%

Since Times Higher Education has ended its arrangement with its former data provider

(QS), is no longer using the old rankings methodology. Instead, THE have announced they

intend to produce their own rankings that are developed in concert with a new rankings data

provider, Thomson Reuters. The 2010-2011 ranking will provide a top 200 list and six tables

showing the top 50 institutions by subject; the methodology is based on new criteria and

weightings: 13 separate performance indicators brought together into five headline categories

(see Table 2) were designed in order to capture the full range of university activities, from

teaching to research to knowledge transfer:

The “Teaching — the learning environment” category employs five separate indicators designed

to provide the sense of the teaching and learning environment of each institution, from both the

student and academic perspective: (1).a reputational survey on teaching -a worldwide poll of

experienced scholars which examines the perceived prestige of institutions in both research and

teaching; (2) the number of undergraduates admitted by an institution scaled against the number

of academic staff; (3) the ratio of PhD to bachelor's degrees awarded by each institution; (4) the

number of PhDs awarded by an institution, scaled against its size as measured by the number of

academic staff; (5) the measure of institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers.

The indicators of the ―Research — volume, income and reputation‖ category are: (6) a

reputational survey on research; (7) the university's research income, scaled against staff numbers

and normalized for purchasing-power parity; (8) a simple measure of research volume scaled

against staff numbers obtained by counting the number of papers published in the academic

journals indexed by Thomson Reuters per staff member; (9) a measure of public research income

against an institution's total research income.

―Citations — research influence‖ is measured by (10) the number of times its published work is

cited by academics The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson

Reuters' Web of Science database. The figures are collected for every university, with data

aggregated over a five-year period from 2004 to 2008. All the citations impact data are

normalized to reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas.

A single indicator determines the ―Industry income — innovation” category: (11) the institution's

research income from industry scaled against the number of academic staff.

The final category named ―International mix — staff and students― employs two indicators: (12)

the ratio of international to domestic staff and (13) the ratio of international to domestic students.

To calculate the overall ranking score, "Z-scores" were created for all datasets. This standardizes

the different data types on a common scale and allows fair comparisons between the different

types of data. Each data point is given a score based on its distance from the average (mean) of

the entire dataset, where the scale is the standard deviation of the dataset. The Z-score is then

turned into a "cumulative probability score" to give the final totals.

Criticism

There are limitations to every ranking. The majority of rankings share some basic

methodological features:

- they compare whole universities (ignoring that they have different goals and missions and that

they are internally differentiated)–either exclusively or some also introduce comparisons of broad

discipline fields

-they aggregate the indicators6 into a single composite overall indicator of the quality of

an institution; the weights given to the single indicators as well as the indicators differ quite a lot

between rankings

-results are displayed in a league table with individual rank positions from first to last

(Berghoff and Federkeil, 2009: 42). Other limitations regard:

Education versus Researc:. focusing on competitive research and less on teaching and learning is

well known.

6 Glänzel and Debackere (2009: 66) emphasize that ranking is ―positioning comparable objects on an

ordinal scale based on a (nonstrict) weak order relation among (statistical) functions of, or a combination of

functions of measures or scores associated with those objects‖, and that this functions (usually based on variables for

evaluative purpose), are called indicators.

Size – Rankings have been criticised for favouring large, well funded institutions with an

emphasis on science, and most of its indicators are not adjusted for size.

Bias towards the Natural and Life Sciences – measures such as citation counts do favour

universities which are strong in the fields of medicine and natural sciences, where there is a

strong publishing and citation culture.

Anglo-Saxon bias – a common criticism of global rankings is that they favour universities which

publish in the English language, because most journals counted by bibliometric databases (counts

of papers and citations per university) are in English. In addition, Anglo-Saxon academics have a

greater culture of citing each other’s work than academics in other countries.

UBB in international rankings

Since there is no Romanian university in the top 500 of ARWU, a strategy to enter the top

500 universities in the world through the Shanghai ranking was launched by the Babeş-Bolyai

University in March 2006. Taking into account the scores obtained by UBB in terms of Shanghai

ranking indicators, should be noted that, until the strategy was launched, no employee or graduate

of UBB has received Nobel Prizes; no employee or graduate of UBB has received Field Medals;

no employee or graduate of UBB is included in the ―highly cited researchers‖ list; UBB staff

have only a few ISI contributions (including contributions in Science and Nature). Therefore, a

series of measures are proposed to stimulate the international visibility: financial rewards to staff

provided in recognition of their publications in ISI journals (rewards for publications in Science

and Nature; rewards for articles published in journals indexed in ISI Science Citation Index

Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index; Arts and humanities Citation Index; rewards for

articles in journals indexed in international databases that perform a selection process of

publications); academic promotion conditioned by ISI publications and publication in

international databases; to organize a set of activities in order to familiarize the UBB staff with

the ISI system (workshops, publication of a ―Understanding ISI‖ volume); to support the entrance

of UBB publications in the ISI system; to introduce an internal quality indicator which takes into

account the weight of ISI publications per faculty with a fundamental role in the distribution of

basic financing from the budget; to streamline the research by reducing the bureaucracy

associated with the management of projects funded by grants; to employ the criteria targeting

scientific prestige in allocating internal resources for research and in internal accreditation of

research centers; to assure university subscription to scientific journals databases, which are

accessible without password inside the UBB; to create information systems in order to simplify

interdisciplinary collaborations between faculty (Agachi and Bucur, 2007: 73-79). The initial

strategy is reinforced in 2008 by a package of measures that includes: adaptation of scientific

research policy to international evaluation criteria; adaptation of new personnel policies to

international evaluation criteria; adaptation of the doctoral program at need to increase the

internationally recognized scientific production; orientation of all scientific research institutes to

the criteria of productivity and international recognition; raising the status of University

publications and publishers; informing the faculty and departments on the evolution of the

criteria, procedures, results of international academic rankings and recommending appropriate

actions (Mărcuş et al., 2009: 19-20)

Regarding the position occupied by the Babeş-Bolyai University in the THE -QS World

University Rankings, should be mentioned that until 2008 UBB was not taken into account. In

2008, the University has caught the attention of the THES authors by registering on the website

www.topuniversities.com and by creating its own profile. The 2009 THES ranking and the 2010

QS ranking place the Babeş-Bolyai University at the 601+ position.

National Rankings

A first Romanian initiative to complete a ranking of universities according to certain

performance criteria took place in 2000. It proposed a hierarchical system based on seven criteria

obtained by aggregating indicators, each with specified weight, being taken into account issues

related to input, process and output. Since then, several bodies in charge of higher education and

scientific research (CNCSIS7, CNFIS

8, Ad Astra) have proposed various methodologies for

evaluation and / or classification of universities in Romania.

CNFIS and CNCSIS

The National Higher Education Funding Council and the National Council for Quality

Management in Higher Education are two structures with an advisory role for the Ministry of

National Education, Research, Youth and Sport, with responsibilities in distributing funds to state

universities in Romania. CNFIS proposes and applies the basic funding methodology (personnel

costs and material costs) and additional funding (for housing and food subventions, endowments,

investments and repairs, scientific research), while CNCSIS is the main institution funding the

scientific research and graduate studies. The basic financing of the Romanian higher education is

based on a quantitative component (number of students) and a qualitative component (quality

indicators). By specific formulas, the two aspects are expressed in number of full-time equivalent

7 Consiliul Naţional al Managementului Calităţii în Învăţământul Superior, in translation National Council

for Quality Management in Higher Education

8 Consiliul Naţional pentru Finanţarea în Învăţământului Superior, in translation National Higher Education

Funding Council

students, and relative quality indicators. Their value is calculated separately for each university,

according to the reported information. Quality criteria have been introduced in the financing

algorithm in 2000, by 2008 reaching 30% of the total financing value (Mărcuş et al., 2009: 145).

CNFIS differentially distributes budgetary funds to state universities in Romania based on quality

indicators (see Table 3) and on the institutional performance reported in the previous year. For

2008 13 indicators grouped into four groups were used, while for 2010 CNFIS proposes a set of

16 indicators.

Table 3. Set of quality indicators for 2010 (CNFIS proposals- December 2009)

Group Sub-group Qualitative indicators Weights

2010 2009 2008

I T

each

ing s

taff

(8

,5%

)

I.A. Quality of the

teaching staff (4%)

Q.I.1 Ratio of teaching staff to full time

equivalent students (budget and tax) 3,00% 3,00% 4,00%

Q.I.2 Ratio of professors to full time

equivalent students (budget and tax) 1,00% 1,00% 0,00%

I.B. Potential

development of the

teaching staff (4,5 %)

Q.I.3 Ratio of associate professors to full time

equivalent students (budget and tax) 1,00% 1,00% 1,00%

Q.I.4 Ratio of teaching staff with a doctoral

degree to full time equivalent students

(budget and tax)

1,50% 1,50% 1,50%

Q.I.5 Ratio of teaching staff under 35 years to

full time equivalent students (budget and tax) 2,00% 2,00% 2,00%

II T

he I

mp

act

of

scie

nti

fic

rese

arc

h o

n t

he

did

acti

c

proce

ss (

9%

)

II.A. Performance level in

scientific research (7 %)

Q.I.6 Performance level in scientific research

(Index with complex structure) 7,00% 7,00% 7,00%

II.B. means of

disseminating the

scientific research results

(2%)

Q.I.7 The percentage of master and doctorate

full time equivalent students (for 2009 and

further studies in liquidation) within the total

number of FTE students

1,00% 1,00% 0,00%

Q.I.8 Ratio (percentage) of research and

design contracts and the total university

income

1,00% 1,00% 1,00%

III

Infr

ast

ru

ctu

re

(3,5

%)

III.A. Quality of the

infrastructure (2,5%)

Q.I.9 Costs for equipment and investments

related to the number of students (budget and

tax), except for students enrolled in distance

education

1,50% 1,50% 1,50%

Q.I.10 The amount of material expenses

related to the number of students (budget and

tax), except for students enrolled in distance

education

1,00% 1,00% 1,00%

III.B. Quality of the

means of documentation

(1%)

Q.I.11 Costs for the purchase of books,

journals and books, to the number of students

(budget and tax), except for students enrolled

in distance education.

1,00% 1,00% 1,00%

IV U

niv

ersi

ty m

an

agem

en

t (9

%)

IV.A. Quality of

academic, administrative

and financial

management (7%)

Q.I.12 Weight of investment expenditure by

the university budget allocations for this

purpose

0,50% 0,50% 0,00%

Q.I.13 Total quality of academic and administrative management (Index with

complex structure)

3,00% 3,00% 3,00%

Q.I.14 Weight of income from sources other

than budgetary allocations in the total

university income

2,00% 2,00% 2,00%

Q.I.1 Weight of income from sources other

than budgetary allocations spent on

institutional development in the total

university income

1,50% 1,50% 3,00%

IV.B. Quality of student

social and administrative services (2%)

Q.I.16 Quality of student social and

administrative services (Index with complex structure)

2,00% 2,00% 2,00%

V.

Lif

elo

ng

Lea

rn

ing

(in

20

09

:

0%

)

Q.I.17Development of lifelong learning in

universities 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Total 30,00% 30,00% 30,00%

QI6 has a special status in the financing methodology as an indicator which has a complex

structure. For calculating Q16, universities report data to CNCSIS, not to CNFIS (as happens in

the case of other dimensions.). QI6 2010 is obtained by the aggregation of five general principles

-with specific weights -regarding the assessment of quality of scientific research activities in

universities:

1. Ability to attract funds for scientific research

2. Ability to prepare highly qualified human resource for scientific research

3. The relevance and visibility of the results of the research activity

4. The ability of academics to design / develop products - innovative technologies for

business

5. The institutional capacity of universities to conduct and support scientific research

performance

CNFIS and CNCSIS do not publish annual hierarchies as happens to the majority of

ranking systems. However, in 2008, CNFIS has released a report entitled Analysis of the quality

indicator QI16 evolution on the performance of universities in scientific research and its

influence in the distribution of budgetary allocations for basic funding. This report analyzes the

evolution of QI16 and its sub-indicators in the period 2003-2007 for Romanian higher education

state institutions. Five value groups have been established, plus two additional for universities art

and architecture universities. Over the five years, UBB was always the first group. On the other

hand, CNCSIS initiated a study entitled Ranking of Romanian universities in terms of scientific

research activity. According to the rankings established on the basis of the QI16 eight sub-

indicators and using data reported annually by the universities in 2004-2006, the Babeş-Bolyai

University ranked second in 2004 and 2005 and climbed to first place in 2006.

Ad Astra Ranking

Ad Astra association is a non-profit organization founded in 2002 to promote the

Romanian scientific research, which includes Romanian researchers working in the country and

abroad. Since 2005, the association publishes Romanian universities’ ranking -a ranking achieved

on the basis of articles published by academics of Romanian higher education institutions in

internationally recognized scientific journals indexed by ISI Web of Science. The third and most

recent edition of the ranking is the 2007 edition that includes an overall ranking, scientific fields

ranking that reflects the scientific performance of academics. All the universities in Romania,

both state and private, were taken into account. The overall ranking was based on relating the

total number of items to the number of teacher staff. The ranking by scientific area was done by

distributing scientific articles published by universities in scientific fields, according to the

journal in which they were published, and adding the impact factor of journals in which

universities have published articles. A journal’s impact factor is an approximate measure of the

prestige and quality of scientific journals. The distribution of journals by scientific areas has been

made also by the ISI. All articles indexed in 2006 written by authors from Romania were

extracted from ISI database and then distributed by institutions based on the addresses given by

the authors in the articles. An article by authors from several institutions has been considered as a

whole article for each institution. Only publications such article, which presents original

scientific results, and no other publications such as letters, reviews were considered Some

journals are considered by ISI as belonging to several fields; an article published in this journals

was accounted as a whole article for each journal’s area. Some areas have been grouped so that

the list of fields used in the tables is close to the areas in which Romanian undergraduate studies,

can be organized according to current legislation. (Ad Astra, 2008, Romanian universities’

ranking, pp. 12-13) The main limitation of this ranking is that it only evaluates the scientific

performance of teaching staff and no other factors indicating the quality of education.

In the overall ranking, the Babeş-Bolyai University occupies the second position.

In the ranking by scientific area, the Babeş-Bolyai University occupies the 1st position in

psychology, theology and mechanical engineering; 2nd place in physics, chemistry, computer

science, biology, geology, economics and business, sociology, political sciences and journalism

and materials engineering; 3rd

place in environmental science, nuclear technology, biomedical

engineering and multidisciplinary engineering; 4th place in chemical engineering and 5th place in

medicine and pharmacy.

What rankings should…

Given the fact that the rankings of HEIs have become not only a way of legitimizing

institutional value at global level, but also a part of the framework of national accountability and

quality assurance process, the International Ranking Expert Group (founded in 2004 by the

UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education in Bucharest and the Institute for Higher

Education Policy in Washington, D.C.) proposed a set of principles of quality and good practice

in HEIs rankings—the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions. These

were grouped into four categories, as follows:

A)purposes and goals of rankings

- be one of a number of diverse approaches to the assessment of higher education inputs,

processes, and outputs

- be clear about their purpose and their target groups

- recognize the diversity of institutions and take the different missions and goals of

institutions into account

- provide clarity about the range of information sources for rankings and the messages each

source generates

- specify the linguistic, cultural, economic, and historical contexts of the educational

systems being ranked

B)design and weighting of indicators

- be transparent regarding the methodology used for creating the rankings

- choose indicators according to their relevance and validity

- measure outcomes in preference to inputs whenever possible

- make the weights assigned to different indicators (if used) prominent and limit changes to

them

C)collection and processing of data

- pay attention to ethical standards and the good practice recommendations articulated in

these Principles.

- use audited and verifiable data whenever possible

- include data that are collected with proper procedures for scientific data collection

- apply measures of quality assurance to ranking processes themselves

- apply organizational measures that enhance the credibility of rankings

D) presentation of ranking results

- provide consumers with a clear understanding of all of the factors used to develop a

ranking, and offer them a choice in how rankings are displayed.

- be compiled in a way that eliminates or reduces errors in original data, and be organized

and published in a way that errors and faults can be corrected (Berlin Principles on

Ranking of Higher Education Institutions, 2006).

Conclusions

Higher education institutions all over the world manifest a ―fatal attraction‖ to academic

rankings. In our opinion a there is a fundamental gap between HEIs that occupy a position in

rankings as result of their policies established independently from the ―ranking phenomenon‖ and

Higher education institutions that make a goal from this, adjusting their institutional strategies in

order to take part to the ―reputational race‖ or ―competition for recognition‖. However, the need

to adapt to international standards is not to blame. It is a must! It remains clear that in the

globalization era ―think global and act local‖ has to become ―think global and act global‖.

References

Agachi, Paul Şerban and Bucur, Ioan (eds.) (2007). Politica cercetării ştiinţifice la

Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.

Berghoff, Sonja and Federkeil, Gero (2009). The CHE approach. In C.Dehon, D. Jacobs

and C. Vermandele (eds.) Ranking universities. Bruxelles: Editions de L’Université de Bruxelles,

pp. 41-63.

Berlin Principles (2006). Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions.

http://www.ihep.org and < http://www.cepes.ro >.

Buela-Casal, Gualberto, Gutiérrez-Martínez, Olga, Bermúdez-Sánchez, María Paz,

Vadillo-Muñoz, Oscar (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of

universities. Scientometrics, 7 (3): 349–365.

De Maret, Pierre (2007). Universities in the World: What for?. In J.Sadlak and N.C. Liu

(eds.) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status. Cluj-Napoca: Cluj

University Press, pp. 31-38.

Glänzel, Wolfgang and Debackere, Koenraad (2009). On the ―multi-dimensionality‖ of

ranking and the role of bibliometrics in university assessment. In C.Dehon, D. Jacobs and C.

Vermandele (eds.) Ranking universities. Bruxelles: Editions de L’Université de Bruxelles, pp.

65-75.

Marginson, Simon and Van der Wende, Marijk (2007). To Rank or To Be Ranked: The

Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education

11: 306-329

Mărcuş, Andrei, Gherghin, Gelu, Szabó, Melinda and Zaharie, Monica (2009). Ghidul

competitivităţii şi calităţii. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.

Merisotis, Jamie P. (2002) Summary report of the invitational roundtable on statistical

indicators for the quality assessment of higher/tertiary education institutions: Ranking and league

table methodologies, Higher Education in Europe, 27: 475–480.

O’Leary, John, Quacquarelli, Nunzio and Ince, Martin (2010). Top Universities Guide

2010. London: QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited.

Pathak, Virendra and Pathak, Kavita (2010). Reconfiguring the higher education value

chain. Management in Education 24: 166-171.

Prolux, Roland (2007). Criteria for Ranking Universities with Affiliated Components. In

J.Sadlak and N.C. Liu (eds.) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status.

Cluj-Napoca: Cluj University Press, pp.167-174.

Slaughter, Sheila and Leslie, Larry L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies,

and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Van Raan, Anthony F.J. (2007). Challenges in the Ranking of Universities. In In J.Sadlak

and N.C. Liu (eds.) The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status. Cluj-

Napoca: Cluj University Press, pp. 87-121.

Vincke, Philippe (2009). University rankings. In C.Dehon, D. Jacobs and C. Vermandele

(eds.) Ranking universities. Bruxelles: Editions de L’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 11-25.

Zhao, Chun-Mei (2007). Building World-Class Universities: Some Unintended Impacts of

University Ranking. In The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status. Cluj-

Napoca: Cluj University Press, pp. 321-331.

Websites

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/home,

16/Aug/2010

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/, 18/Aug/2010

http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp, 25/Aug/2010

http://www.cncsis.ro/Public/cat/22/Indicatorul-IC6.html, 15/Sep/2010

http://www.cnfis.ro/index_f.html, 15/Sep/2010

http://www.ad-astra.ro/universitati/clasamentul_universitatilor_2007.pdf, 17/Sep/2010