Coordination Régionale PACA

Coordination Régionale PACA http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca petit texte ici Coordination Régionale PACA pcassuto 2013-05-21T17:33:38Z Piccoli firm over teaching benchmark http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2013/03/17/piccoli-firm-over-teaching-benchmark <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/piccoli-firm-over-teaching-benchmark-20130311-2fwcu.html#ixzz2NVNiLWxx" target="_blank"><img src="http://resources.smh.com.au/smh/media-common-1.0/images/feedback-button.gif" alt="Feedback Form" align="left" /></a>By Josephine Tovey, Amy McNeilage. NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccoli has refused to back away from his plans to set benchmarks for new teachers based on HSC results, despite universities saying they may not implement the plan. Universities threw their support behind a Commonwealth government plan announced on Monday for new standards for teaching students which include an assessment of aptitude but do not set a minimum standard academic result. Applicants could be screened for their suitability for teaching via methods which could include ''interviews, demonstrated values and aptitude, and a written statement.'' The move comes less than a week after the NSW government announced its own reforms aimed at improving the quality of teaching, including setting minimum HSC requirements for school leavers hoping to enter teaching degrees. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/piccoli-firm-over-teaching-benchmark-20130311-2fwcu.html#ixzz2NVNiLWxx" target="_blank">Read more...</a> Benchmarking 2013-03-17T10:49:11Z pcassuto Seeing academic disciplines as brands http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2013/01/20/seeing-academic-disciplines-as-brands <div> <div> <div> <div> <div> <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130116124025145" target="_blank"><img src="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" alt="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" width="99" height="77" align="left" /></a>By Iain Woodhouse. I used to think that being in an academic discipline was like standing in the corner of a room. When you are in it you know you are and so does everyone else. But once you start to drift… it’s not so clear whether you are in or out. These days, in many areas of academic study, the important discussions are happening in the middle of the room, not the corners. As a physicist who has worked in departments of physics, engineering, water resources and geography, I guess I’ve moved towards the middle of the room (at least the one I occupy). And as a consequence, I’m starting to notice that disciplines are more like brands than they are corners of the room. I meet disciplinary devotees who like to display it on their (metaphorical) T-shirt, or as a badge, and some even have it tattooed on their chest, lest they forget, or worse, lest someone question their loyalty to the cause. The discomfort of straying from the security of the corner of the room makes these ‘brands’ all the more important. Now we can debate for hours what an academic discipline is, and how it may or may not be just like a ‘brand’, but that might be too tedious. Instead, let me simply list some properties of both. <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130116124025145">Read More...</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Benchmarking 2013-01-20T10:41:32Z pcassuto Towards a Benchmark on the Contribution of Education and Training to Employability http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2013/01/01/towards-a-benchmark-on-the-contribution-of-education-and-training-to-employability <a href="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/" target="_blank"><img class="decoded" src="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/stories/crell/logo_crell.gif" alt="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/images/stories/crell/logo_crell.gif" width="147" height="48" align="left" /></a>By Christelle Garrouste. <a href="http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/22533/1/eur_methodological%20note_sept2011.pdf" target="_blank">Towards a Benchmark on the Contribution of Education and Training to Employability: Methodological Note</a>. INTRODUCTION “Given the importance of enhancing employability through education and training in order to meet current and future labour market challenges, the Commission is invited to submit to the Council a proposal for a possible European benchmark in this area by the end of 2010” (Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on “Education and Training 2020”, 2009/C 119/06). Following this request, the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) commissioned to the Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) a series of analyses of the contribution of Education and Training systems (E&T) to employability. The first CRELL report proposed an analytical framework and indicators to measure E&T systems provision of essential skills, facilitation of the school-to-work transition and support of lifelong learning (LLL), (Arjona Perez, Garrouste and Kozovska, 2010a). Based on this study, the Member States Expert Group on Employability Benchmarks concluded on March 3, 2010 that i) Vocational Education and Training (VET) plays a key role in supplying skills that are valued in the labour market; ii) the duration of the transition from education to work and the (mis)match between education and occupation are both topics of policy interest; iii) participation in LLL of older and low qualified workers and returns to education at a later age were also two possible areas for educational benchmarks supporting employability. The Expert Group requested an in-depth analysis of each of the above topics, with information on data availability and a list of indicators from which a benchmark could be chosen. The resulting work was compiled in a second CRELL report (Arjona Perez, Garrouste and Kozovska, 2010b). CRELL prepared a preliminary statistical report presenting different methods to conduct forecast estimations on transition phase indicators which was presented to DG EAC, EUROSTAT, DG EMPL and CEDEFOP at an inter-service consultation meeting on Septembre 13, 2010. Based upon the comments from the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks (SGIB) and suggestions from EUROSTAT, DG EMPL and CEDEFOP, DG EAC decided to focus the benchmark proposal on one sole indicator of transition from education to employment that would target a percentage increase of the employment rate of 20-34 years old graduates. The present report describes the methodological framework applied to define the proposed benchmark. Section 1 briefly discusses the relevance of an indicator on the transition from education to work as a proxy of the contribution of education to employability. In turn, section 2 presents in details the nominator and denominator of the retained benchmark indicator and section 3 displays the corresponding 2004-2010 historical trend data computed by EUROSTAT. Moreover, in section 4 we report results from preliminary robustness checks, confirming the validity of that data to measure employability. Further, section 5 explains the method applied to define the target value at the horizon 2020. Results from the three deterministic forecasting methods retained are presented in section 6 along side with the results from Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, section 7 concludes with a benchmark proposal on education for employability. The analysis presented in this report is based upon the September 14, 2011 extractions from EUROSTAT’s EU-LFS annual data from 2004 to 2010. 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In section 4.2., we showed that two deterministic forecasting methods out of three estimate an overall increase between 2010 and 2020 by almost 5 percentage points, with significant variations across individuals with different educational attainment levels. For instance, we observed a 3 percentage points decrease for the medium educated (when considering the conditional trend model). The only educational group for which a positive increase is predicted by all three methods is the high educated (with an increase comprised between 2 and 3 percentage points). In view of the variability of these results, we relaxed the assumption that each scenario predicts the overall employability rate at an equal weight. We conducted Monte Carlo simulations for each method to estimate the impact of a random change of weight in one scenario at a time (section 4.3). This final adjustment revealed that in the case of method 1, the assumption of equal weight could be validated; while in the case of methods 2 and 3, scenario 4 was less likely to occur than the other three scenarios, and in the case of method 2 only, scenario 3 was more likely to occur than the other three (see Table A.4 and Figures A.6-A.8). In turn, the Monte Carlo simulations yield a lowest possible value of 75.91% (based on method 3) and a highest possible value of 83.96%. (based on method 1) (see Table A.4). In terms of plausible percentage point changes between 2010 and 2020, this means that the benchmark target should be defined within a range of [-0.6; +7.5]. A negative benchmark target being of course excluded, we need to choose a value within the range [0; 7.5]. The choice of the actual target value within that range becomes at this stage more political than statistical. Still, one last statistical option in support of the final political decision is to look back at the overall mean value estimated by the deterministic forecasting methods (Table 1), namely +3.79, which enables us to finally reduce the plausible range of values to [3.79;7.5]. Finally, considering the full analysis presented in this report, DG EAC decided to formulate the following benchmark proposal as defined in Box 3 below (European Commission, 2011). As demonstrated above, this choice of a minimum of 5 percentage points increase is motivated by the fact that such a target would guarantee a plausible (and thereby, realistic) improvement of the employability of all educational groups (supported by all forecasting methods and controlling for uncertainty). As shown by Figure A.9, such a target would lead the majority of the MS above 75% of employability for their 20-34 year-olds graduates. The main outliers are IT, GR, LV and EE, who are expected to remain below 70% of employability. When looking at the higher educated sample, only countries below 80% by 2020 are GR and IT. For the medium educated sample, six countries are expected to be below 70% by 2020, namely EE, IT, LV, LT, IE and GR. Of course, such an overall target would require specific sub-targets by gender, by type of educational programme (vocational vs. mainstream), by field of education, and, in some countries, by immigration status. Overall, “the purpose of a benchmark on Education for Employability is to enhance policy exchange on what constitutes good education policies to stimulate employability. Relevant policy steps have already been outlined in "the Framework for Youth Employment" in "Youth on the Move" and within the "Agenda for New Skills and Jobs". These would suggest that education systems shall engage in systematic monitoring of the labour market situation of young people and develop better and more responsive educational policies which reflect labour market realities, including the provision of the mix of skills or key competences that are relevant to the labour market; combating early school leaving; enhancing school-business links; providing transparent information on learning outcomes; aligning the orientation of graduates to future labour market demands; and providing guidance and counselling” (European Commission, 2011). Download <a href="http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/22533/1/eur_methodological%20note_sept2011.pdf" target="_blank">Towards a Benchmark on the Contribution of Education and Training to Employability: Methodological Note</a>. Benchmarking 2013-01-01T18:59:05Z pcassuto Benchmark à l'échelle européenne des structures de coopération interuniversitaire - Universités de l'Ouest (RUOA) http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/12/24/benchmark-l-chelle-europ-enne-des-structures-de-coop-ration-interuniversitaire-universit-s-de-l-ouest-ruoa <a href="http://www.ruoa.org/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ruoa.org/images/photos/0004/img_1064839330106.jpg" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="90" height="90" align="LEFT" /></a>Comment contribuer, à l'échelle européenne, à une meilleure lisibilité et articulation des activités des « Universités de l'Ouest » alors même que l'on assiste à une multiplication des structures de coopération et au regroupement d'établissements? Pour y répondre, les Présidents des 10 universités membres du RUOA ont décidé de lancer un projet visant à identifier des structures de coopération interuniversitaire présentes en Europe et de déterminer la valeur ajoutée de modèles de coopération. Ce projet s'inscrit dans une démarche participative entre notamment les universités membres du RUOA et ses partenaires (ex: les PRES du Grand Ouest, les Conseils Régionaux, Nantes Métropole, la DATAR). Il s'agira ensuite de formuler des options stratégiques visant à clarifier le positionnement du RUOA au sein du paysage universitaire. Durée du projet : 23 mois (février 2012- décembre 2013) Groupe de travail référent « Benchmark » composé de Présidents d'Université, VP Relations Internationales, VP Formations tout au long de la vie, Chargés de mission PRES Contact : <a href="mailto:charge.projet@ruoa.org" target="_blank">Ludovic COLLIN</a>, chargé de projet. <a href="http://www.ruoa.org/documents/0099/vf_fiche_com_benchmark_europe_010312_1330619870031.pdf" target="_blank">En savoir plus</a>. <a href="http://www.ruoa.org/documents/0099/ruoa_project_benchmark_europe_20122013_1334154800817.pdf" target="_blank">More information</a>. <div> <a href="http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?client=tmpg&depth=1&hl=en&langpair=fr%7Cel&rurl=translate.google.com&u=http://www.ruoa.org/&usg=ALkJrhgl28ZW-6VB8TI8oY7PaSv2gwNicQ" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ruoa.org/images/photos/0004/img_1064839330106.jpg" border="0" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="90" height="90" align="LEFT" /></a> Πώ&sigmaf; να συμβάλει στο ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, καλύτερη αναγνωσιμότητα και κοινέ&sigmaf; δραστηριότητε&sigmaf; τη&sigmaf; "πανεπιστήμια τη&sigmaf; Δύση&sigmaf;", ακόμη κι αν είμαστε μάρτυρε&sigmaf; ο πολλαπλασιασμό&sigmaf; των δομών τη&sigmaf; συνεργασία&sigmaf; και ενοποίηση&sigmaf; των θεσμών; Για να δοθεί απάντηση ότι, οι Πρόεδροι των 10 μελών πανεπιστήμια RUOA αποφάσισε να ξεκινήσει ένα έργο για τον εντοπισμό δομέ&sigmaf; που υπάρχουν διαπανεπιστημιακή&sigmaf; συνεργασία&sigmaf; στην Ευρώπη και να καθορίσει την προστιθέμενη αξία των μοντέλων συνεργασία&sigmaf;. <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.univ-provence.fr%2Fblog%2Fcoordination-rgionale-paca%2Fbenchmarking%2F2012%2F12%2F24%2Fbenchmark-l-chelle-europ-enne-des-structures-de-coop-ration-interuniversitaire-universit-s-de-l-ouest-ruoa&langpair=fr|el" target="_blank">Περισσότερα</a>... </div> Benchmarking 2012-12-24T11:52:15Z pcassuto International ranking systems cannot constitute the basis for benchmarking of Indian institutions http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/12/11/international-ranking-systems-cannot-constitute-the-basis-for-benchmarking-of-indian-institutions <a href="http://indiaeducationdiary.in/Shownews.asp?newsid=17736" target="_blank"><img src="http://indiaeducationdiary.in/images/logo.jpg" border="0" alt="India Education Diary : Eden of Education" align="left" /></a>By Rashmi r Parida, New Delhi. International ranking systems cannot constitute the basis for benchmarking of Indian institutions. This information was given by the Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Dr. Shashi Tharoor in Rajya Sabha today. Minister Tharoor said that there are several entities undertaking ranking of world universities as per their own criteria. Some of the better known global systems of rankings are the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) system, the Times Higher Education (THE), World University Rankings and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He further added that these different international ranking systems use different values, indices and parameters to rank higher educational institutions. These criteria are neither universally accepted nor recognized and are therefore sometimes subjected to criticism in academic circles. Some of these parameters may not be relevant for Indian higher educational institutions and therefore, these rankings cannot constitute the basis for benchmarking of Indian institutions. <a href="http://indiaeducationdiary.in/Shownews.asp?newsid=17736" target="_blank">Read more...</a> Classement Benchmarking 2012-12-11T01:07:18Z pcassuto HEA workshop brings together universities from Australia and the UK http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/12/08/hea-workshop-brings-together-universities-from-australia-and-the-uk <a href="http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/news/detail/2012/UK_and_Australia_workshop" target="_blank" title="higher education academy HEA"><img class="rg_hi uh_hi" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiNtw2TkvvOXdzhkiCELdxmUhOv3Xi7ddquXBEBJrF1YVPHJRp" width="112" height="67" align="left" /></a>The HEA is funding a workshop to guide academic promotion policy and practice in both the UK and Australia. The benchmarking workshop takes place at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and will bring together leading academics from Newcastle University, the University of Leicester, the University of Wollongong and UTAS. The four institutions involved will be able to share information on and compare promotion policies and processes, as well as staff perceptions of promotion. It will develop a benchmarking framework to be shared at the Universities Australian Higher Education Conference in Canberra in February 2013 and at a UK conference in April. Professor David Sadler, UTAS' Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students and Learning), said: "This project builds on a HEA report in 2009 on reward and recognition and internationally recognised work at the University of Wollongong. "The process includes the development of a self-review template with performance indicators and measures which can be applied across the higher education sector, national and internationally. "The ultimate aim is to produce the resources to underpin the recognition of teaching as core to the assurance of standards in higher education." Dr Jeanne Keay, Head of International Strategy at the Higher Education Academy, said: "Recognition of teaching excellence is at the heart of the HEA's work and the opportunity here to share our experience and learn from other models is important in taking a dynamic approach to further developing promotion policy and practice." Professor Annette Cashmore from the University of Leicester is the UK project leader and Dr Chris Cane (Leicester) and Professors Stephen McHanwell and Sue Robson (Newcastle University) are also team members. The external evaluator is Dorothy Whittington, Emeritus Professor, University of Ulster. Seven UK and eight Australian universities are represented on the two international advisory groups. The UK international advisory group includes the HEA's Dr Jeanne Keay, Prof Gavin Brooks (University of Reading), Prof Mick Healey (Gloucestershire), Prof Janice Kay (Exeter), Prof Dai Hounsell (Edinburgh), Prof Allison Littlejohn (Glasgow Calendonia University) and Prof Nick Lieven (Bristol). Benchmarking 2012-12-08T22:42:06Z pcassuto Rethinking education: JRC's monitoring and benchmarking support http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/12/01/rethinking-education-jrc-s-monitoring-and-benchmarking-support <a href="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/news/277-rethinking-education-jrcs-monitoring-and-benchmarking-support" target="_blank"><img class="icon-indent" src="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/thumb_17450.jpg" alt="Europe needs a radical rethink on education © shho (stock.xchng)" align="left" /></a>Skills are key to productivity and Europe needs a radical rethink on how education and training systems can deliver the skills needed for the labour market. To meet this challenge the European Commission launched on 20 November 2012 a new strategy called <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking_en.htm" target="_blank" title="Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes">Rethinking Education</a>. This strategy, developed with the JRC's contribution, encourages Member States to take immediate action to ensure that young people develop the right skills and competences and find a rewarding job. The JRC's Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL), managed by the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), has contributed to the setup of this strategy with co-authored studies providing: <ul style="line-height: 1.4em"> <li>country analysis that summarise the performance and policy reforms of the Member States, providing essential elements to monitor the implementation of the country-specific recommendations within the Europe 2020 strategy.</li> <li>the education and training monitor, a new analytical tool that provides a comprehensive overview of the core indicators on education and training systems in Europe, enabling the comparison of progress as well as the identification of the immediate challenges for Member States.  </li> </ul> The JRC has also been involved in the new benchmark proposed by the Commission on foreign language learning. Developed in collaboration with the Directorate General for Education and Culture, it is based on this year's European survey on language competences. This survey assesses pupils' knowledge of the first and second foreign languages at the end of lower secondary education. The survey provides, for the first time ever, empirical evidence on the ability of young Europeans to communicate across borders, their attitudes, expectations and exposure to foreign languages, as well as teaching methods and approaches in this field. Background information The "Rethinking education" strategy calls for stronger focus on developing transversal skills and basic skills at all levels, especially entrepreneurial and IT skills, and for the full exploitation of new technologies, in particular the internet. It also states that adequate funding is needed to build world-class vocational education and training systems and increase levels of work-based learning. Moreover, it calls for improving the recognition of qualifications and skills, including those gained outside of the formal education and training system. The new foreign language learning benchmark proposed by the Commission aims that by 2020, at least 50% of 15 year olds should have knowledge of a first foreign language (up from 42% today) and at least 75% should study a second foreign language (61% today). Benchmarking 2012-12-01T21:08:05Z pcassuto University rankings and system benchmarking reach similar results http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/09/09/university-rankings-and-system-benchmarking-reach-similar-results <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2012090414311572" target="_blank"><img src="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" alt="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" align="left" /></a>By Benoît Millot. University International Rankings, or UIRs, have become a reality. And despite their shortcomings and the rise of resistance against them, they are likely to stick around. Critics of UIRs target methodological weaknesses such as bias in favour of research, use of composite indicators, reliability of peers’ subjective opinions and so on. But they also point out the perverse effect of UIRs on the decisions of tertiary education institutions and of national authorities in charge of tertiary education – racing to develop world-class universities at the expense of national tertiary education systems. In reaction to these caveats, analysts have convincingly argued that instead of focusing on individual universities, it would be more useful to put the spotlight on entire tertiary education systems. Simultaneously, there should be a shift from ranking to benchmarking. This twofold shift would allow countries to assess the health of their higher education systems and to design reforms encompassing all types of tertiary education institutions rather than focusing on a few centres of excellence. Efforts are currently under way from various quarters to develop reliable International System Benchmarking (ISB) instruments, and the first comprehensive one of its kind has recently been released. International rankings: Key results from the main leagues In 2010 and 2011, the figures on which this analysis is based, the two UIRs most widely referred to by the academic community, analysts and decision-makers were arguably the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), launched by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the one operated by Quacquarelli Symonds under the auspices of Times Higher Education. (The THE ranking is now operated by Thomson Reuters and QS continues to run its own ranking.) In 2010 and 2011, the 500 top universities for each ranking are concentrated in 50 countries in the QS league and in 39 countries in the more exclusive ARWU league. All but two countries hosting the top universities in the ARWU league are also present in the QS league, which is a first (and strong) hint that the two rankings yield close results. A subset of 37 countries appear in both leagues. In order to make comparisons between countries, we cannot be satisfied with the sheer number of top universities – this number needs to be weighted in order to control for the size of the countries. One possibility would be to use each country’s population, but this is not fully satisfactory because it ignores intergenerational differences. Instead, we use the number of people of tertiary age as a weight. The ratio of the number of 500 top universities to the tertiary-age population gives us what could be labelled the ‘density of top universities’. Density gives an idea of the number of top universities available per one million people of tertiary age. In fact, using the ARWU data for illustration purposes, it is clear that the number of top universities and their density follow almost opposite tracks. Of the 25 countries with the highest density of top universities, 23 are to be found in both the QS and ARWU rankings – an observation that confirms the first hint mentioned above regarding the convergence of the two leagues. Secondly, the rankings of countries by density of top universities are very closely correlated for QS and ARWU. With the exception of Ireland, which is number one in the QS league and only number 13 in the ARWU league, most countries have a similar position in the two rankings, and the values of the density ratios in the two leagues are also very close for each individual country. Hence, despite their different approaches, the two leagues yield highly comparable results. Also, all the 37 countries but one (India) are either high-income or upper-middle income. This observation substantiates the assertion that UIRs’ methodology is putting a premium on well-resourced universities. On the other hand, even within the group of less than 40 countries that harbour the top world universities, there is a huge gap between those leading the flock and those at the lagging end: while in Finland, two world-class universities serve 100,000 tertiary age people, in India two world-class universities cater to 100 million potential clients. Indeed, there is a strong and positive correlation between the density of top universities and gross domestic product per capita. Despite significant differences in the way they are developed, the QS and ARWU rankings do share some common points, in particular the size of the universe that they cover (focusing on the top 500 universities) and their reliance on a range of indicators encompassing several areas of academic life. This is not the case for a relative newcomer to the field, the Webometrics ranking, which considers a universe of more than 12,000 institutions worldwide, and relies on several aspects of the visibility of institutions on the internet. Given such a disparity in the methodology, one would expect widely different results in the rankings. Surprisingly, the comparison made on the 500 top universities of the three leagues shows strikingly similar results, and the correlations between the three rankings are significant and positive. There are therefore strong indications that three of the major and most popular UIRs have converging results both in terms of the set of countries hosting ‘world-class’ universities and in terms of the rankings of countries within this set. International system benchmarking The purpose and focus of ISBs are quite distinct from the ones explicit in UIRs, as mentioned above. The former targets country systems and vows to assess their performance against set criteria, while the latter focuses on individual institutions. Although the need for ISB instruments was identified long ago, few practical attempts have been made to implement them. Statistical challenges account for this situation. Following the policy brief prepared for the Lisbon Council covering 17 countries, the work undertaken by the OECD, and the World Bank’s benchmarking of universities in the Middle East and North Africa, the first genuinely comprehensive ISB – the U21 Ranking of National Higher Education Systems – was developed by the Melbourne Institute in 2012. U21 is based on four sets of indicators: resources, environment, connectivity and output. Five straightforward indicators, linked to the financial resources allocated to tertiary education, are used to assess the performance in the first area (resources). The main novelty of the U21 lies in its use of indicators designed to characterise the environment, particularly the subset of indicators related to the ‘qualitative measure of the policy and regulatory environment’. These represent significant progress because they respond to the widespread view that governance issues are a main constraint to the development and improvement of tertiary education systems. Connectivity, the third area considered by U21, is measured by two highly relevant indicators: (i) the proportion of international students in tertiary education, and (ii) the proportion of articles co-authored with international collaborators. Output, the fourth area under U21, is measured by a basket of nine indicators spanning a whole range of criteria from research products to enrolment rates and graduate unemployment rates, the latter indicator being an answer to the growing concern regarding the employability of graduates produced by tertiary education systems. Rankings are provided separately for each of the four areas mentioned above. Finally, an overall, composite indicator is constructed by combining the four sets of indicators. Comparing UIR and ISB Comparing the outcomes of the UIR and ISB instruments is made possible by the fact that we have translated the results of the university-based indicators of the UIRs in countrywide terms, making them analogous to the indicators of the ISB. The comparison is presented here in two steps: (i) how do the sets of countries compare – regardless of their individual rankings, and (ii) how do the rankings compare? While the countries covered in the three versions of UIRs (QS, ARWU and Webometrics) are the results of university rankings, those considered by U21 are a deliberate choice, itself linked to a predetermined decision. U21 selected a set of 48 countries, using data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) ranking of research output. It is therefore not a surprise to find a strong overlap between these 48 U21 countries and the 39 and 50 countries that host top universities according to ARWU and QS, respectively, or indeed to the 37 countries to be found in both UIRs. The main differences between the group of UIR countries (and especially the more inclusive QS list) and that of the U21 are: (i) the lesser representation of developing countries in the U21 list, and (ii) the stronger presence of Eastern Europe countries in the U21 list. These differences aside, there is strong convergence between the UIRs and U21. However, the decisive test is not the aggregate number of countries represented in both lists, but the rank of the countries. There are highly significant correlations in rankings, which show that the two instruments yield similar results. However, differences are also to be noted, especially in the dispersion of votes for the countries ranked first – while Finland is ranked in the top four in all three leagues, Ireland is ranked first by QS but lags at 13 and 16 in the ARWU and U21 lists, respectively. Even more striking, while the United States leads the pack in the U21 list, it is relegated to ranks 17 and 22 in the ARWU and QS leagues, respectively. Still, there is a lot of stability in the rankings for most other countries, and the superposition of the three lists shows remarkable homogeneity. QS and ARWU produce very close results, which are also confirmed by the Webometrics league, despite the differences in methodology used by these three UIRs. In all three rankings, the density of top 500 universities (‘world-class’ universities) is closely related to the wealth of the countries. Comparing these results with those obtained by the U21 ranking – the first comprehensive ISB – yields strikingly similar results, even though the focus and objectives of the ISB are clearly different from those of the UIRs. It appears that hosting world-class universities is associated with the position held in system-wide rankings. Both kinds of instruments analysed in this note suggest that being in a rich country helps both to boost the supply of high quality universities and to maintain a performing system of tertiary education. Part of the explanation for this finding comes from the bias common to the two instruments – that is, an overemphasis on research and on well-resourced systems. Despite this, it remains that these results reflect both the choices made by universities themselves and tertiary education decision-makers at the national level, and the fact that money can buy quality. From a methodological point of view, it can be concluded that the empirical implementation of the concepts that radically differentiate the two instruments end up – so far – with very similar outcomes. Undoubtedly, as data availability increases, both rankings and benchmarking will improve, and their respective outcomes will become more and more complementary. * Benoît Millot is a former lead education economist with the World Bank and is currently a consultant with the same institution. This article does not represent the views of the World Bank and is the sole responsibility of the author. Classement Benchmarking 2012-09-09T14:57:26Z pcassuto Internal Quality Assurance and Benchmarking http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/08/16/internal-quality-assurance-and-benchmarking <a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/images/ENQA.png" alt="http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/images/ENQA.png" align="left" /></a>This report is based on the annual ENQA Internal Quality Assurance seminar on the theme of Learning from each other – using benchmarking to develop IQA that was held on 16-17 June 2011 in Helsinki, Finland. It presents a general overview of the benchmarking theme and discusses common features and differences of the benchmarked agencies’ IQA activities in terms of the selected three themes: performance indicators, follow-up on feedback and staff competence/development. The report also puts forward the benchmarking partners’ views on strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for development of each other’s activities, as well as the good practice they have identified on the selected theme. <a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank">Download the Report</a>.<a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank"> Internal Quality Assurance and Benchmarking</a> DOUGLAS BLACKSTOCK, NADINE BURQUEL, NÚRIA COMET, MATTI KAJASTE, SÉRGIO MACHADO DOS SANTOS, SANDRA MARCOS, MARION MOSER, HENRI PONDS, HARALD SCHEUTHLE, LUIS CARLOS VELÓN SIXTO Introduction The Internal Quality Assurance group of ENQA (IQA Group) has been organising a yearly seminar for its members since 2007. Staff members involved in IQA of all ENQA members can join the activities of the Group. The main objective is to share experiences concerning the internal quality assurance of work processes in the participating agencies. The Group is coordinated by a Steering group (SG), consisting of five members. The composition of the Steering group changes gradually by election of one or two members every year. The overarching theme of the 2011 seminar was how to use benchmarking as a tool for developing an agency’s internal quality assurance system. The seminar gathered around 45 participants in the premises of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) in Helsinki on 16-17 June 2011. “Benchmarking involves comparing different aspects of the work of a group of organisations. It can be a very flexible approach. You can compare services, products or processes; you can look at a wide range of issues or focus on areas of concern; and you can benchmark with similar organisations or take a cross-sector approach on common issues such as customer care. Benchmarking may take place as a one-off exercise or be an ongoing relationship. The benchmarking exercise should be a mutually beneficial relationship, with every organisation in the benchmarking group being able to learn and develop from the experience of others.” The Steering group based the preparation of the benchmarking activity on this definition. Agencies which are similar to each other, i.e. in size or scope, were grouped in pairs or triplets. Each group included an agency member of the Steering group. They compared their own practice with others on a certain focus area before the seminar, between January and May 2011. In addition to good practices, the participating agencies were encouraged to openly share which processes they find challenging or ineffective in their agencies. The findings were presented in the IQA Seminar in June 2011. The benchmarking exercise focused on the following areas: • Benchmarking of performance indicators (with FINHEEC) • Benchmarking of on the follow-up of feedback (with ACSUCYL) • Benchmarking of staff competence/development (with NVAO) The present report gathers good practise and expertise related to these three themes: follow up on feedback (chapter 2), staff development (chapter 3) and performance indicators (chapter 4). The first chapter of the report provides a general overview of the benchmarking theme and is based on the keynote speech given by Dr Nadine Burquel... <a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank">Download the Report</a>. Conclusions Following the comparison exercise of the two Agencies, these conclusions may be drawn: Is it possible to compare Agencies? • The agencies work in very different contexts, using different processes although some have comparable procedures; • The indicators used for this benchmarking exercise may seem, at first sight, to be of little value and have little meaning if considered alone. They are context sensitive; • More data from different agencies would be needed to choose the best and most representative indicators. Could indicators be a tool to compare the performance of the agencies? • It is difficult and lengthy to compare agencies with this type of indicators; • They are a good internal tools to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the quality management system; • It is useful to know which indicators other agencies use (qualitative comparison). FINAL THOUGHTS Some areas to work on in the future were identified: • The group considered that it could be more important to proceed with the exchange of practices on the use of different procedures; • Nevertheless, when exchanging and comparing practices, agencies should also look at the way(s) in which they measure the impact of such practices (internal: resources; and external: results) • It would be important to develop meaningful indicators to assess the impact of the agency’s work on HEIs and on the HE system as a whole. <a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank">Download the Report</a>.<a href="http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA_wr_20.pdf" target="_blank"> </a> Qualité Rapport Benchmarking 2012-08-16T14:51:55Z pcassuto Benchmarking employability of young graduates http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/08/01/benchmarking-employability-of-young-graduates <a href="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/" target="_blank"><img src="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/templates/crell/images/banner_img.png" alt="http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/templates/crell/images/banner_img.png" width="321" height="59" align="left" /></a>This benchmark will be the reference level of European average performance on the share of employed graduates from education and training and will help <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/progress_en.htm" target="_blank">monitoring progress</a> towards the targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy. Based on the proposal presented by the Commission in May 2011, the Council agreed that by 2020, the share of employed among the graduates 34 year olds having left education and training no more than three years before the reference year should be at least 82 as compared to 76.5 in 2010. This target level refers to an EU average and does not constitute a national target for individual Member States. Employability - that is, the combination of factors which enable individuals to progress towards or enter employment, to stay in employment and to progress during their career - is a complex concept, involving not only each individual's characteristics, skills, attitudes and motivation, but also other external factors which lie beyond the scope of education and training policy, such as labour market regulations, demography, the structure of the economy and the overall economic situation. Since 2010 researchers of the JRC's Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning CRELL have developed the conceptual and methodological frameworks defining the present benchmark. They have also been evaluating the role played by specific education and training policies in explaining within country and cross country variations in its value. The European benchmark for education and training for employability complements those already adopted in May 2009 and the one on learning mobility adopted in November 2011 and will be examined by Member States and the Commission in 2014 as part of the Education and Training 2020 ET 2020 the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training in order to decide whether a revision of the indicators is needed. <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu//uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/130142.pdf" target="_blank">Press release</a>: Council conclusions on the employability of graduates from education and training CRELL methodological note: <a href="http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/22533/1/eur_methodological%20note_sept2011.pdf" target="_blank">http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/</a>. Benchmarking 2012-08-01T14:56:44Z pcassuto Benchmarking in Higher Education http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/06/30/benchmarking-in-higher-education <a href="http://www.his.de/veranstaltung/seminare_einzeln?nr=818" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.his.de/images/hislogo.jpg" alt="http://www.his.de/images/hislogo.jpg" align="left" /></a>International Benchmarking-Conference  Seminar III/7 ----- 13. bis 14.09.2012. Contact: <a class="link" href="http://www.his.de/unternehmen/orga/mitarbeiter?auskunft=gilch" target="_blank">Dr. Harald Gilch</a>. Conference venue: Industrial trade union Mining, chemistry, energy (IG BCE - Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie) Königsworther Platz 6 30159 Hannover Conference room C103 Target group: Members of the executive board of universities (president, chancellor, vice-chancellor) Management staff office and administrative staff in the field of strategic higher education management Topics: On the topic of Benchmarking in Higher Education Benchmarking is an on-going, systematic process for measuring and comparing work processes of one organization to those of another to identify best practices. Higher education can gain much from this technique, as industry has. For several years now this method has become a substantial aspect of modernization and development activities in higher education in Europe. Recent experience with benchmarking in higher education indicates that benchmarking is a method covering a wider range of process elements and instruments. Yet the dependency on contextual and organizational conditions often implies a need to adapting the conventional benchmarking process and instruments. The contributed presentations will report on various European benchmarking projects that successfully combine different elements of a benchmarking concept – quantitative indicator oriented aspects as well as qualitative process oriented aspects. Further the presentations will cover the learning effects of benchmarking, reflecting on actors inside the organizations as well as external supporters of a benchmarking process such as consulting organizations. As the application of benchmarking holds both conceptual and practical difficulties, the contributed presentations will focus on practical guidelines for successful and effective benchmarking processes. <a class="link_pdf" href="http://www.his.de//pdf/33/Flyer_BM_Higher_Education_2012.pdf" target="_blank">Program and additional information</a>. <a class="arrow_right" href="http://www.his.de/hochschulmanagement" target="_blank">http://www.his.de/hochschulmanagement</a>. <a class="arrow_right" href="http://www.his.de/benchmarking" target="_blank">http://www.his.de/benchmarking</a>. HIS <a class="link_pdf" href="http://www.his.de/pdf/33/FlyerOrganisationsBeratung_english.pdf" target="_blank">Higher Education Management</a>. <a href="https://hisbus.his.de/uc/benchmarking" target="_blank">Register here</a> (open until 10th August 2012). Benchmarking 2012-06-30T21:18:56Z pcassuto Branding in higher education - just how feasible is distinctiveness? http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/06/19/branding-in-higher-education-just-how-feasible-is-distinctiveness <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jun/19/distinctiveness-in-higher-education" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/0edf8f19288c546ae7e06be1c4fc2b26ac1ac9f8/common/images/logos/the-guardian/professional.gif" alt="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/0edf8f19288c546ae7e06be1c4fc2b26ac1ac9f8/common/images/logos/the-guardian/professional.gif" align="left" /></a>In competitive times, universities are being encouraged to create more distinct brand identities. But how compatible is this with the existing measures of excellence? At last week's <a href="http://www.case.org/Conferences_and_Training/Distinctiveness_in_Higher_Education.html" target="_blank">CASE Europe conference</a> on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/distinctiveness" target="_blank" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Distinctiveness">distinctiveness</a> in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/higher-education" target="_blank" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Higher education">higher education</a>, co-hosted by the <a href="http://www.distinct.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Distinct Project</a>, it quickly became clear that universities are in a bit of a pickle: they have to be able to stand out in a marketplace where all the others competitors offer the same basic service - teaching and research. And they have to make the case that they're doing their own thing when the entire system for measuring <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/excellence" target="_blank" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Excellence">excellence</a> (which, in turn, influences student choice) sets out to compare one institution to another. Tuesday's conference set out to share the outcomes from a two-year investigation into what distinctiveness looks like, both within and beyond the HE sector. Led by Oxford Brookes University and funded by the Higher Education Funding Council (Hefce), the research defined distinctiveness as "the vehicle which enables an organisation to achieve many of its strategic goals through being memorable, authentic, and clearly articulating what it has to offer to the people that are important to it". The crux of the matter is that the very survival of universities rests upon their ability to be clear about who they are and then to use that knowledge to attract students, partners and ultimately, funding. Internally, a <a href="http://www.distinct.ac.uk/about/distinct_matters" target="_blank">distinctiveness strategy</a> is also credited with improving staff motivation and loyalty. The conference presented a course of action through the <a href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/distinct/resources/resourceindex/LanguageofMarketing" target="_blank">Distinct Framework</a> for universities that are soul-searching (there was many a mention of the "squeezed middle" and what to do if that's where your institution finds itself) but in doing so, it raised many more questions - notably around <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/leadership" target="_blank" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Leadership">leadership</a>, rankings and mission group membership. Conflict exists between standardisation and distinctiveness - branding without being branded. Bob Burgess, the vice chancellor of the <a href="http://www2.le.ac.uk/" target="_blank">University of Leicester</a> spoke of the recurring challenge of developing strengths, such as widening participation, that sit at odds with league tables. He was highlighting the fact that these rankings are measurements of success which, on the whole, only reflect well for those at the top. The issue has been raised before on the network. Edward Peck, VC of the University of Birmingham, wrote about "a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jan/19/any-point-comparing-oxford-wolverhampton?" target="_blank">tendency to standardisation</a>" while, at the same time, universities are "sensitive to the nuances in the hierarchy of apparent status that we seem to have internalised". He goes on to say: "The paradox of diversity in HE in the UK is that we have given too much sway to the traditional idea of the university without wanting either to face up to the hierarchy that is therefore implied or to pursue the distinctiveness that would make such a hierarchy largely irrelevant." And that is just one of the paradoxes. If, as the Distinct Project suggests, the future survival of an institution will come down to whether or not it has a strong brand, or personal identity, then where does that leave the mission groups - where commonality takes precedence over individuality? Distinctiveness also invariably presents a challenge for leaders: do you pursue distinctiveness (excellence in teaching and close links with regional economy, for example) and find success in your niche or do you strive to mimic those institutions who have been identified as the best (by focusing on research, for example) and risk paling into insignificance? Do you continue with the status quo, hoping to ride the wave of policy changes and come out on the other end relatively unscathed or accept that distinctiveness may require a cultural shift and lots of unpopular change to succeed? So what to do? The answer from the conference, in part, seems to lie in a pragmatic definition of distinctiveness, one which is less about being unique (in a stand alone sort of way) and more about being able to effectively communicate what you do. It is more about gleaming from the subject tables, or other specific categories in the ranking, what improvements can be made, rather than lamenting your overall position. Not that a steadfast commitment to distinctiveness is without its benefits, <a href="http://www.tees.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Teeside University</a> is a good case study. Its VC, Graham Henderson, told a compelling story of how, through focusing on the needs of the regional economy and by responding quickly to policy priorities (a strategy he calls 'responsive repositioning') the institution has grown from 8,000 students in 1992 to 30,000 in 2008. It is also the only modern university to be named Times Higher Education University of the year. But he conceded that his strategy, though consultative, was driven by leadership mandate and staff had to be supported if they felt they couldn't buy into the agenda and chose to move on. So distinctiveness works. But it costs. How much an institution is willing to pay is, I guess, determined by how at risk it feels in these challenging times. And how at risk it is comes down to the strength of its brand..and that takes us neatly back to the start of the blog. Benchmarking 2012-06-19T23:06:53Z pcassuto EU ministers raise graduate employability benchmark http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/05/19/eu-ministers-raise-graduate-employability-benchmark <a href="http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120518091709739" target="_blank"><img src="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" alt="http://enews.ksu.edu.sa/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/UWN.jpg" align="left" /></a>By Marguerite-Jeanne Deschamps. The European Union’s Council of Ministers has approved a new employability benchmark of 82% of EU graduates being employed within three years of leaving education and training by 2020. The benchmark, which applies to 20- to 34-year-old graduates, is a significant step up from the 76.5% benchmark in 2010. Dennis Abbott, education spokesperson for the European Commission, said this is an average rate and explicitly not a concrete target for each of the 27 EU countries to reach by 2020. “It’s a demonstration of the political will that exists in all the member states that this is a serious but realistic target which we have to reach to ensure that Europe remains competitive and a reasonably prosperous place to live. At the moment we’re falling short,” Abbott said. The decision has thrown a spotlight on one of the key factors involved in conceiving and bringing about a globally competitive Europe from 2020, namely the link between higher education and employability. While the onus of raising the employability of graduates rests mainly on the EU’s national governments, the commission will try to help them achieve this new target through its two main programmes affecting students – Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci – where increased investment is now taking place. “Investment in job placement will rise by 30% this year and next. By 2012, we shall fund 130,000 job placements for young people through these programmes and this will rise to 150,000 by 2013,” he said. Abbott explained that all the studies undertaken by Brussels showed the growing importance of higher education in the jobs market: “We estimate that 35% of total jobs by the end of the decade will require graduate-level skills.” This was one reason why improving skills was a key part of the EU’s Europe 2020 economic development strategy. One of its goals is to ensure that the percentage of graduates rises to 40% across the EU by that year. The last review of the 2020 strategy warned that future progress was likely to fall short of achieving the targets set by governments. The benchmark initiative has been warmly welcomed by the European University Association, or EUA. Michael Gaebel, head of the EUA’s higher education policy unit, said statistical data proves that tertiary education has a very positive impact on employability, not just through the professional education it provides, but particularly due to the more general skills it develops. These include critical, analytical thinking, the ability to innovate and conceptualise, and self-learning – “skills that are a good asset for young people entering a labour market that is changing very quickly and will require them to take up a range of different careers during their lives”, according to Gaebel. He said the 2012 Eurydice report, Key Data on Education in Europe, showed that tertiary graduates found jobs twice as fast as others and were likely to have more stable jobs. On average, 86% of European tertiary graduates between the ages of 25 and 39 were working, compared to 78% of those with upper secondary qualifications and only 60% of those with lesser qualifications. The EUA hopes the benchmark initiative will allow a closer look at study-skills mismatches – for instance, the problem that 10% of graduates work under their skills level and the higher academic unemployment of women. It will also take into consideration the impact of the economic crisis on higher education funding, particularly on higher education participation and the provision of teaching and student services. Gaebel said the benchmark could support higher education institutions analysing graduate entry into the labour market and help improve learning provision and student services. Benchmarking 2012-05-19T01:04:40Z pcassuto RUOA benchmark project - the identification of interuniversity cooperation structures in Europe http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/04/28/ruoa-benchmark-project-the-identification-of-interuniversity-cooperation-structures-in-europe <a class="logo" id="ctl00_LogoLink" href="http://www.eua.be/mpnews/mpnews-articles/12-04-27/Call_for_cooperation_RUOA_benchmark_project_-_the_identification_of_interuniversity_cooperation_structures_in_Europe.aspx" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.eua.be/images/logo.jpg" alt="Logo" align="left" /></a>The Network of Universities of the Western Atlantic (RUOA), a French non-profit organisation of 10 universities, has recently launched a project called “EU benchmark of interuniversity cooperation structures”, which will run from February 2012 to December 2013. The project aims to identify interuniversity cooperation structures, and to assess the added value and limits of their governance and processes in order to draw lessons for the future of the RUOA network. RUOA underlined that the project would also be an opportunity to build partnerships with other interuniversity cooperation networks and “to contribute to a clearer territorial strategy in higher education and research”. For more information, visit <a href="http://www.ruoa.org/jsp/fiche_pagelibre.jsp?STNAV=&RUBNAV=&CODE=07374059&LANGUE=1">this website</a>. <a href="http://www.ruoa.org/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.ruoa.org/images/logo.gif" alt="http://www.ruoa.org/images/logo.gif" width="409" height="44" align="left" /></a>Created in 2001, the Network of Universities of the Western Atlantic (RUOA) is a center of inter-university cooperation involving 10 universities in these four regions of Brittany, Limousin, Pays de la Loire and Poitou-Charentes. The network is dedicated to: - coordinating scientific politics and educational institutions, and cooperation on projects on European level, - linking up member universities among territories, - developing research by pooling resources and expertises, - fostering the emergence of an European identity. It offers a showcase for the public higher education and research, to promote the development of the reel identity of Western Universities, the guarantee of a dynamic in favor of the common interest. Common declaration of the 9 presidents of the Network "Nowadays, great stakes are not defined on an insulated universities scale. While preserving the autonomy and the identity of each one, which are contributing to the unit richness, it is advisable to found new cooperations around common projects, which will give a national and European recognition. The coordination of policies and strategic choices is a key element for the development of higher education and research in the areas of Brittany, Pays de la Loire and Poitou-Charentes. Thus, by synergies which it can impel, the Network must widely contribute to the consolidation of the Grand Ouest European anchorage ." A new visibility To give an interregional identity to the offer of higher education and to develop courses of excellence which associate several universities. To allow the poles of research to reach the necessary critic size for important scientific investments and to contribute to the technological development of the ‘Grand Ouest' companies. To place the 10 universities from Atlantic West in a configuration with European dimension and to constitute a choices showcase for a great area with international ambitions.   A cooperation of projects A shared will to implement joint projects, based on 3 axis of work: - To equip the universities with a new capacity of communication and cooperation, in the name of scientific and technical development, by the reinforcement of high flow connections and the constitution of a network coordinated at the regional level. - To develop the e-learning offer, while coordinating and harmonizing the initiatives of ‘e-universities', on a regional scale. - To work out joint projects which associate several universities of the network, financed by the European community in the perspective of the European regional policy (Interreg III) and the European research policy (6th framework program). See also <a href="http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/vae/2010/04/16/les-effets-de-la-vae-sur-les-parcours-professionnels" target="_blank">Les effets de la VAE sur les parcours professionnels</a>. Benchmarking 2012-04-28T11:59:03Z pcassuto Strong strategies for competitive universities http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2012/01/29/strong-strategies-for-competitive-universities <a href="http://www.esmu.be/" target="_blank"><img src="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/211064_143292822369620_6889562_n.jpg" alt="http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/211064_143292822369620_6889562_n.jpg" align="left" /></a>Europe's competitiveness lies in its capacity to innovate and transfer knowledge to society for economic growth. More than ever before the triangle of Education, Research and Innovation is crucial. Higher Education institutions know they have a crucial role to play in the new EU 2020 strategy set by the European Union. The richness of European Higher Education lies in the diversity of its HEIs, but to support the major challenges, European universities must modernize their governance, management and modes of operation. The increasing competition in the Higher Education sector demands growing levels of quality, leadership and professionalisation. Building on more than 20 years, ESMU: - promotes the strategic developments in European universities - develops <a href="http://www.esmu.be/modern.html" target="_blank">European networks on Higher Education Management</a> - encourages a learning environment on good management practices through conferences, seminars and <a href="http://www.esmu.be/winterschool.html" target="_blank">training programmes</a> in wide European networks of professionals - offers <a href="http://www.esmu.be/benchmarking.html" target="_blank">benchmarking exercises to support universities</a> with increased institutional performance - <a href="http://www.esmu.be/services.html" target="_blank">supports universities with their strategic profiling</a>. ESMU's strong European values, drive for continuous improvement and constant exploration of new areas to promote excellence in universities are at the core of all its activities. Benchmarking Internationalization Benchmarking to enhance performance in internationalisation It is becoming essential for universities to develop the ability to define their rationales and approaches in the international effort, to assess performance according to different strategic objectives and to understand how they compare to their competitors.   Open to both academics and administrators involved in internationalisation processes, who have a keen interest inthe concepts and practices of benchmarking and its application to internationalisation. <a href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/" target="_blank">http://www.education-benchmarking.org/</a> → New Benchmarking group on internationalisation: Join the ESMU-EAIE Benchmarking group on internationalisation due to start in January 2012. For more information, check <a class="jce_file" href="http://www.esmu.be/images/stories/Benchmarking_concept_note_2011-4.pdf" target="_blank" title="detailed information here">detailed information here</a> and/or contact the Benchmarking Secretariat (Inês Proença: <a href="mailto:projects@esmu.be">projects@esmu.be</a>). Benchmarking 2012-01-29T14:56:58Z pcassuto Arab educators highlight need for clear benchmarks http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2011/12/17/arab-educators-highlight-need-for-clear-benchmarks <a href="http://gulfnews.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/gulf-news-logo-1.505033%21image/3510741613.gif_gen/derivatives/landscape_220/3510741613.gif" alt="http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/gulf-news-logo-1.505033!image/3510741613.gif_gen/derivatives/landscape_220/3510741613.gif" align="left" /></a>By Iman Sherif. Shaikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan said the importance of higher education has given prominence to commissions and associations of academic licensing and accreditation. Abu Dhabi: Establishing clear principles and benchmarks for quality education was the focus of the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, held in the capital. "Determining the scope of our operations now and in the future requires the adoption of international best practices, benchmarks, assessment methods, strategies and effective systems for accreditation," said Shaikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, addressing the meeting. He added that the importance of higher education had raised the prominence of commissions and associations of academic licensing and accreditation. "The increasing role of knowledge as an engine of social and economic activities in our region and the world has led to the increased importance of higher education in society, not only in supporting efforts of development and growth but also in preparing students for rich and productive lives," he said. Several specialists and professors deliberated on ways of ensuring how institutions in the UAE can offer a world-class higher education. "We are looking at finding benchmarks to ensure that the outcome achieved by UAE students is equal in quality to those of their worldwide peers," Sue Parner, senior manager in charge of qualifications framework at the National Qualification Authority, told Gulf News. "The higher education here in the UAE does not provide students with sufficient on-the-job training opportunities to practice what they are learning while studying," she added. Nick Harris, international adviser shared his view with Gulf News. "A qualification framework provides a direct and understandable link between the needs and expectations of the society and its individuals and all forms of education and training and their quality assurance." The feasibility of adopting models of successful enterprises and how they leverage integration of students in their professional workforce was among the topics discussed. Dr Victoria Lindsay, deputy director of validation services at UK Open University, explained to Gulf News about the partnership with the Arab Open University. "Some 22,000 students are currently benefiting from this partnership that will allow them to receive two degrees so that they meet both the European and Arab requirements in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan," he said. Qualité Benchmarking 2011-12-17T17:45:06Z pcassuto The distinctiveness gap: do students see the difference between universities? http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2011/11/18/the-distinctiveness-gap-do-students-see-the-difference-between-universities <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/2011/nov/17/universities-distinctiveness-gap" target="_blank"><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/4b5ffdccf8b3ac1565b9621a6ee0ef295b55a28d/common/images/logos/the-guardian/professional.gif" alt="The Guardian home" width="160" height="35" align="left" /></a>By Anne Gwinnett. Oxford Brookes University's Anne Gwinnett discusses the findings of a new Distinct project survey that asked vice-chancellors about distinctiveness. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/distinctiveness" target="_blank" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Distinctiveness">Distinctiveness</a> is another word for identity. It concerns the values you hold, the culture in which you do things and the things that you offer. For an institution, it is an important part of how you tell the people with whom you want to engage why they should want to engage with you. However, our evidence suggests there is a "distinctiveness gap". Most vice-chancellors want their institution to be seen as distinctive and different from their competitors, but fewer than half believe that they are actually achieving this. It is not difficult to see why this has come about, but the good news is the evidence seems to suggest that for most institutions there is an answer that lies within. At the Distinct project, we recently sought to establish the views of vice-chancellors in England on distinctiveness. Responses were received from 28 VCs, including the heads of a broad range of institutions: pre- and post-1992, of varying sizes, from all mission groups and non-aligned. So the answers give us some compelling insights into the sector as a whole. More than 80% said it was essential for their university's strategy that they were seen as distinctive by students, yet only around 40% believed that their university was regarded as clearly distinctive by students. VCs believe that most of their audiences (students, employers, partner organisations and so on) see their institution as distinctive in certain key respects. However, the basis for that claim of distinctiveness is not always clear. For example, more than 50% of HE institutions seem to believe that it is the student experience that makes them distinctive but, with so many competing on the same territory, there is limited scope. Furthermore, one in four of the VCs who claimed that their students regard them as "absolutely distinctive" were unable to pick out any attribute on which their institution was completely different from the rest. It is easy to see how we got here as a sector. Until recently, most forces affecting universities pushed them towards homogeneity; they were expected to compete for funding and a place in the league tables based on a set of criteria common to all. While those forces continue to operate, the latest changes in the HE environment mean that there are additional, conflicting demands for institutions to find ways to differentiate themselves to attract students and resources. With increased competition, institutions will need to be able to express, clearly and convincingly, why they should be the preferred choice of prospective students, potential donors, employees of the calibre they need or partner organisations. We believe that this does not necessarily equate to a bleak picture for institutions; it is not the case that any university lacks the potential to be distinctive. Rather, our research from both within and beyond the sector tells us that any organisation can find and communicate its distinctive offer, providing it has a clear perspective on where it is now and its <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/leadership" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Leadership">leadership</a> has the commitment and skills to take on this challenge. Next steps • Find your unifying core. What is it about your institution that makes it special to both employees and external audiences? What is the core of why you exist and what you offer to the world that can't be found elsewhere? Why are you one institution rather than a loose confederation of departments? • Identify and understand your key audiences. You can't be all things to all people, so prioritise and focus your resources where they will have most impact. In order to influence your key audiences you need to understand what they think of HE in general and of your institution in particular. Good quality, unbiased research is key. • Perception is reality. People will act based on their perception – no matter how inaccurate – so, for your institution, their perceptions are your reality. Don't seek to justify or explain why they are wrong. Give them reasons to believe the things you want them to know. • Leadership commitment is vital. Senior management need to be open to the idea that what you aspire to be is not necessarily how you are perceived. Only then will the resources and leadership needed to establish and communicate distinctiveness be forthcoming. • Have the courage to stand out. In the words of Michael Porter: "Strategy is choosing to run a different race because it's the one you've set yourself up to win." Identify what you are really better at than those institutions which your audiences regard as your competitors, and commit to that. • Use the Distinct project resources – tailored tools and techniques for the sector which we have developed from our research both within and beyond HE, and are available on our <a href="http://www.distinct.ac.uk/" target="_blank">website</a>. Anne Gwinnett is project sponsor for the <a href="http://www.distinct.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Distinct</a> project, a HEFCE-funded initiative to support universities in identifying and communicating what makes them distinctive. She is director of corporate affairs at <a href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/" target="_blank">Oxford Brookes University</a>. The full results from Distinct's vice chancellors' survey will be published shortly at <a href="http://www.distinct.ac.uk/" target="_blank">www.distinct.ac.uk</a>. To request a copy of the results directly, please email contact@distinct.ac.uk. Benchmarking 2011-11-18T11:23:46Z pcassuto Benchmarking group on internationalisation http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2011/08/28/benchmarking-group-on-internationalisation <a href="http://www.esmu.be/benchmarking.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/files/2010/12/esmu.jpg" alt="http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/files/2010/12/esmu.jpg" width="294" height="84" align="left" /></a>Our <a href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/" target="_blank">"Benchmarking in European Higher Education</a> activities are designed to improve the use of benchmarking in higher education. Benchmarking is a powerful management tool designed to help modernise higher education management and to promote the attractiveness of European Higher Education. It supports HEIs and policy makers to better realise the Lisbon goals and the Bologna Process. New <a class="jce_file" href="http://www.esmu.be/images/stories/Benchmarking_concept_note_2011-4.pdf" target="_blank" title="Benchmarking group on internationalisation">Benchmarking group on internationalisation</a>, January 2012. Benchmarking to enhance performance in internationalisation WHAT IS BENCHMARKING? Benchmarking is increasingly widespread in both the private and public sector as a means to measure the performance of products, services or processes through comparison with best practice. It requires the organisations to review their performance, identify strengths and weaknesses and take action for improvement against an agreed set of standards. Benchmarking can be carried out by a single organisation but collaborative benchmarking with compatible partners has gained in popularity. Although it is not yet extensively used in European higher education, there is an increasing interest in both quality and performance measurement, as a number of different initiatives and projects testify. ESMU has carried out several projects for benchmarking in higher education and produced a range of publications (<a href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/" target="_blank">http://www.education-benchmarking.org/</a>). WHY BENCHMARK? There are many benefits for participants in a collaborative benchmarking group. They will be able to: - self-assess their institution, identifying their strengths and weaknesses - better understand the processes which support strategy formulation and implementation in increasingly competitive environments - gain knowledge of good processes and learn about practices to make organisational improvements - obtain data to support decision-making for new strategic developments - assess the competitiveness of their institution - set reachable targets for improvement. Benchmarking also has the potential to stimulate and support processes of change. A shared set of standards and targets enables universities to visualise a pathway for improvement and if the outcomes are successful, benchmarking will create new ways of working that encourage continuous learning for strategic institutional developments through the comparison of practices with other institutions. WHY BENCHMARK INTERNATIONALISATION? While formal benchmarking tools are still relatively unusual in higher education, many institutions are already using some form of informal benchmarking either internally or through comparison with partners or competitors identified as peer institutions. As internationalisation is increasingly integrated into strategic processes, it is becoming essential for universities to be able make informed decisions on institutional direction, as well as assess and enhance performance according to different objectives over a wide range of international activities. The task is a complex one since it is not only an issue of academic programmes and partnerships, but also involves key organisational aspects such as governance, operations, human resources and finance. Beyond the sharing of best practice amongst the group members, benchmarking, when used appropriately, can make a significant contribution to strategic goals and the quality of internationalisation. It provides significant information for senior management that can not only lead to improved understanding and awareness but also enhance stakeholder engagement. It provides valuable support to decision-making processes, raises visibility and reputation and strengthens competitive advantage. WHY JOIN THE PROJECT? This project is ideal for universities that are currently engaged in, or planning to embark upon, a strategic review of their internationalisation activities with a view to enhancing their role and contribution to overall institutional performance. Universities that commit to this one-year project will: - review activities in the field of internationalisation and assess current level of performance - understand better the processes that support the formulation of an internationalisation strategy - gain knowledge on best practices to make organisational improvements and mainstream internationalisation strategy - obtain data to support decision-making for the further development of the internationalisation strategy by setting realistic targets for improvement. See also on the blog: <a href="http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2011/05/08/eu-education-benchmarks-good-progress-but-not-enough" target="_blank">EU education benchmarks – good progress, but not enough</a>, <a href="http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2010/11/26/benchmarking-conference" target="_blank">Benchmarking Conference</a>, <a href="http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2010/07/27/2010-benchmarking-workshops" target="_blank">2010 Benchmarking Workshops</a>. Benchmarking 2011-08-28T19:12:14Z pcassuto EU education benchmarks – good progress, but not enough http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2011/05/08/eu-education-benchmarks-good-progress-but-not-enough <a href="http://www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=29&tx_smfacanewsletter_pi1[nl_uid]=75&tx_smfacanewsletter_pi1[uid]=2480&tx_smfacanewsletter_pi1[backPid]=272&cHash=c1fe401336f2ce93d3dbc01524117041" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.aca-secretariat.be/fileadmin/templates/2009/images/logosmall.jpg" alt="http://www.aca-secretariat.be/fileadmin/templates/2009/images/logosmall.jpg" align="left" /></a>A new European Commission report, on Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training – Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011, highlights that out of the five EU education benchmarks set for 2010 – on early school leavers, low achievement in reading, upper secondary completion, maths science and technology (MST) graduates, and on adult lifelong learning – only the MST benchmark has been attained. The number of MST graduates in Europe increased by 37% since 2000, i.e. well above the set target of 15%. In the other areas, despite steady progress, performance remains below expectations at the aggregate European level. Apart from the average figures, the report also provides individual country records, showing which countries score below or above the EU average, as well as which European states are frontrunners or lagging behind in a comparative perspective. The findings of the report are equally informative for the newly-set education targets, within the Europe 2020 strategy. The two headline targets – of raising the share of the young adult population with tertiary level education attainment to 40% and of reducing early-school leaving to less than 10% – are achievable, assesses the report. Nevertheless, the authors underline that the ‘conservative’ targets, set at the national level in some EU member states, might undermine this European-level objective. The report further emphasises that increased investments into education are needed, if European states want to be successful in this strategy. As much as EUR 10 000 more per student would be necessary to catch up with the levels of the US spending on higher education. As for the next steps, the Commission is expected to launch the two remaining benchmarks – on learning mobility and employability, while all the EU member states are expected to spell out the EU-level targets in their national reform programmes. Download <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/report10/report_en.pdf" target="_blank">the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training (2010/2011), Indicators and benchmarks</a>. 3. Higher Education (pp.54-66) Higher education is crucial to Europe's ambitions to be a world leader in the global knowledge economy. The Europe 2020 Strategy aims to support the further modernisation of European higher education systems, to allow higher education institutions to reach their full potential as drivers of human capital development and innovation. In order to respond to the demands of a modern knowledge-based economy, Europe needs more highly skilled higher education graduates, equipped not only with specific subject knowledge, but also the types of cross-cutting skills – such as communication, flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit – that will allow them to succeed in today's labour market. At the same time, higher education institutions must be able to play their full part in the so-called "knowledge triangle", in which education, research and innovation interact. Europe 2020 has established the headline target that 40% of 30-34 year olds should have tertiary education qualifications by 2020. Closely linked to this is the headline target that Europe should spend 3% of GDP on research. Other EU-level objectives for higher education include the education benchmark for 2010 to increase the number of mathematics, science and technology graduates by at least 15% over 2000 level and the Bologna process objective that, by 2020, 20% of all university graduates should have undertaken learning mobility as part of their university education. When it comes to funding, the European Commission has proposed an objective that 2% of GDP should be spent on higher education. The first section of this sub-chapter examines progress in the European modernisation agenda in higher education and the related inter-governmental Bologna Process to create a European Higher Education Area. The following section focuses on quality in higher education institutions and the remaining sections look at progress in participation in higher education by analysing growth in the number of students and graduates. 3.1 The Modernisation Agenda for Higher Education and the Bologna Process The European Commission presented an over-arching strategy for European higher education in its 'Modernisation Agenda for universities: education, research and innovation' Communication of 2006. The Modernisation Agenda sets out three core priorities: curriculum, governance and funding reform. The issue of degree structure and curriculum reform was established as a key priority with the intergovernmental Bologna Process. Launched with the signature of the Bologna Declaration in 1999, the Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area, in which national higher education systems are more coherent and compatible. 47 European countries now participate in the Process, which has expanded in scope and geographical coverage over the years since 1999. On 28-29 April 2009, Ministers responsible for higher education met in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve to establish the priorities for European Higher Education until 2020. The importance of lifelong learning, widening access and mobility were underlined. The goal was set that by 2020 at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad. The Ministerial Anniversary conference, held in March 2010, confirmed the priorities set the year before but acknowledged that some of the Bologna aims and reforms have not been fully implemented and explained and that an increased dialogue with students and staff is necessary. Ministers committed to step up efforts to accomplish the reforms to enable students and staff to be mobile, to improve teaching and learning in higher education institutions, to enhance graduate employability, and to provide quality higher education for all... 3.2 Current International University Rankings There are currently three worldwide university rankings initiatives regularly published and subject to much public debate: the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) from Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University, the World University Ranking from the Times Higher Education (THE) and since addition the QS World University Ranking (in previous years QS prepared the Times ranking). In the "Shanghai" ranking institutions are ranked according to six criteria mainly related to their scientific production. The "THE" ranking on the other hand applies criteria covering the international dimension of staff and students, teachers to student ratios and peer reviews... 3.3 Investment in higher education The economic crisis, which has resulted in sometimes drastic cuts in higher education budgets, has had an impact of many higher education systems. The full extent of effects still remains to be seen, which will make further monitoring and analysis important. Whilst no specific target for investment has been agreed at European level, the European Commission has repeatedly stressed that in order to fulfil their potential, universities and other higher education institutions need to be adequately funded, and at least 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be invested in a modernised higher education sector, public and private sources combined. Current levels of investment are substantially below this level: 1.2%, for the EU as a whole, of which public investment accounts for by far the largest part, about 1.12% of GDP (due to data lag these figures do not take into account recent cuts in budgets). Levels of investment in higher education vary significantly between Member States, for example, in Denmark, public spending on higher education already surpasses 2% of GDP ; a large share of this, however (as in Finland and Sweden) is direct financial aid to students and direct public spending on higher education institutions in these countries is hence considerably lower. Seven EU countries have a share of direct public spending below 1%, including Italy, Spain and Romania... 3.4 Graduates in higher education The knowledge-based society on which the EU bases its hope for future prosperity and social cohesion requires a considerable supply of highly skilled people. High private returns to tertiary education - evidenced by relatively high wage levels and low unemployment rates for tertiary graduates as a whole - demonstrate that there is strong demand for tertiary graduates. Demand is particularly strong for graduates in science and engineering, but also in other fields like languages and economics... 3.5 Higher education attainment of the population: meeting the Europe 2020 headline target As already discussed in section 2.3 and the Introduction (Figure 2.8), the new Europe 2020 headline target for tertiary attainment levels among the young adult population foresees that by 2020 at least 40% of 30-34 year olds should hold a university degree or equivalent. In 2009, 32.3% of 30-34 year olds in the EU had tertiary attainment, compared to only 22.4% in 2000. The trend since 2000, shown in Figure 2.8, suggests it will be possible to reach the target level by 2020. However, Member States' targets, as set out in their first provisional National Reform Programmes, are by and large very cautious and would lead to a lower rate of progress and possibly failure to meet the target by 2020. In 2009, eleven EU countries had already exceeded the 2020 target of 40%. Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Finland show the highest tertiary attainment, with rates of over 45%. Southern European countries (with the exception of Spain) and Central European countries, despite the fact that they have very high secondary education completion rates, tend to lag behind. Progress in tertiary attainment rates in the period 2000-2009 was strongest in Luxembourg, Ireland and Poland (more than 20 percentage points increase)... Europe Benchmarking 2011-05-08T18:39:04Z pcassuto Benchmarking Conference http://blog.univ-provence.fr/blog/coordination-rgionale-paca/benchmarking/2010/11/26/benchmarking-conference <a href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/images/stories/Viena_final.jpg" alt="Viena_final" width="400" height="96" align="left" /></a>Benchmarking Conference - Facing the rankings: Using benchmarking tools for strategic positioning, Vienna, Austria (20-21 January 2011). A leading conference with practical workshops and plenty of networking opportunities. With the increasing rise of rankings of all kinds, universities are under serious threat of loosing students, loosing attractiveness for the best researchers and of loosing core and competitive funding. When unprepared to anticipate the possible outcomes and to respond adequately by improving their performance, higher education institutions are running the risk of their reputation being damaged in already difficult situations experienced in the context of the economic crisis. Benchmarking is a modern management tool which helps to address the challenges of the rankings, through a better understanding of institutional profiles and needs, with a view to set targets for improvement and to improve strategic positioning. The conference will look at transparency tools such as classifications, rankings and benchmarking exercises in an increasingly diverse higher education context. Drawing on the handbook produced in the framework of the two-year EU-funded EBI-II project Benchmarking in Higher Education, the conference will offer practical peer learning sessions (on benchmarking tools) and specialised workshops (to assist both in the selection of appropriate indicators in the three areas of internationalization, university-enterprise cooperation and regional innovation and in discussing the strength of these indicators). The handbook offers a very detailed methodology on defining and selecting indicators with the use of balance scorecards as well as designing powerful action plans to implement changes as a result of benchmarking exercises. To attend the conference, register <a href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/component/registrationpro/event/6/EBI-II-Conference-Facing-the-rankings---Using-Benchmarking-tools-.html" target="_blank">here</a>. <a class="jce_file" href="http://www.education-benchmarking.org/images/stories/EBI_January_2011_Conference_Vienna.pdf" target="_blank" title="Preliminary Programme">Download the preliminary programme</a>. Benchmarking 2010-11-26T01:01:08Z pcassuto