|
'''Таймс Жоғарғы Білім Әлем Университеттері Ранкингі''' халықаралық [[колледж]] және [[университет]]тер ранкісін ежемелейтін мекеме, [[Ұлыбритания]]лық ''[[Таймс жоғарғы білім]]'' (''THE'') газетіне шығады.
==Тарихы==
<!--
The creation of the original Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings was credited in Ben Wildavsky's book, ''The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World'',<ref>{{cite book |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |year=2010 |title=''The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World |first=Ben |last=Wildavsky}}</ref> to then-editor of ''Times Higher Education'', [[John O'Leary (journalist)|John O'Leary]]. ''Times Higher Education'' chose to partner with educational and careers advice company QS to supply the data.
After the 2009 rankings, ''Times Higher Education'' took the decision to break from QS and signed an agreement with Thomson Reuters to provide the data for its annual World University Rankings from 2010 onwards. The publication developed a new rankings methodology in consultation with its readers, its editorial board and Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters will collect and analyse the data used to produce the rankings on behalf of Times Higher Education. The first ranking was published in September 2010.<ref>{{cite web|last=Baty |first=Phil |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408881&c=2 |title=New data partner for World University Rankings |publisher=Times Higher Education |date= |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref>
Commenting on Times Higher Education's decision to split from QS, editor Ann Mroz said: "universities deserve a rigorous, robust and transparent set of rankings – a serious tool for the sector, not just an annual curiosity." She went on to explain the reason behind the decision to continue to produce rankings without QS' involvement, saying that: "The responsibility weighs heavy on our shoulders...we feel we have a duty to improve how we compile them."<ref>{{cite web|last=Mroz |first=Ann |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408968&c=1 |title=Leader: Only the best for the best |publisher=Times Higher Education |date= |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref>
Phil Baty, editor of the new Times Higher Education World University Rankings, admitted in Inside Higher Ed: "The rankings of the world's top universities that my magazine has been publishing for the past six years, and which have attracted enormous global attention, are not good enough. In fact, the surveys of reputation, which made up 40 percent of scores and which Times Higher Education until recently defended, had serious weaknesses. And it's clear that our research measures favored the sciences over the humanities."<ref>{{cite web|last=Baty |first=Phil |url=http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/03/15/baty |title=Views: Ranking Confession |publisher=[[Inside Higher Ed]] |date=10 September 2010 |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref>
He went on to describe previous attempts at peer review as "embarrassing" in ''[[The Australian]]'': "The sample was simply too small, and the weighting too high, to be taken seriously."<ref>{{cite web|author=17 February 2010 12:00AM |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion-analysis/back-to-square-one-on-the-rankings-front/story-e6frgcko-1225831101658 |title=Back to square one on the rankings front |publisher=The Australian |date=17 February 2010 |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref> THE published its first rankings using its new methodology on 16 September 2010, a month earlier than previous years.<ref name="timeshighereducation1">{{cite web|last=Baty |first=Phil |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413249&c=1 |title=THE World Rankings set for release on 16 September |publisher=Times Higher Education |date= |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref>
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, along with the QS World University Rankings and the [[Academic Ranking of World Universities]] are described to be the three most influential international university rankings.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0916/New-world-university-ranking-puts-Harvard-back-on-top|title=New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top|author=Ariel Zirulnick|publisher=''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]''}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20101003203348/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/schools+always+marks/3560240/story.html|title=Top schools don't always get top marks|author=Indira Samarasekera and Carl Amrhein|publisher=''[[The Edmonton Journal]]''}}</ref> ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'' in 2010 described the Times Higher Education World University Rankings to be "arguably the most influential."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20110213172820/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-universities-make-the-grade-globally/article1709616/|title=Canada's universities make the grade globally|author=Simon Beck and Adrian Morrow|publisher=''[[The Globe and Mail]]''|date=16 September 2010}}</ref>
==Methodology==
The inaugural 2010-2011 [[methodology]] is 13 separate indicators grouped under five categories: Teaching (30 percent of final score), research (30 percent), citations (research impact) (worth 32.5 percent), international mix (5 percent), industry income (2.5 percent). The number of indicators is up from the Times-QS rankings published between 2004 and 2009, which used six indicators.<ref name="Methodology">"[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html Robust, transparent and sophisticated]" (16 September 2010). ''Times Higher Education World University Rankings''. </ref>
A draft of the methodology was released on 3 June 2010. The draft stated that 13 indicators would first be used and that this could rise to 16 in future rankings, and laid out the categories of indicators as "research indicators" (55 percent), "institutional indicators" (25 percent), "economic activity/innovation" (10 percent), and "international diversity" (10 percent).<ref>{{cite web|last=Baty |first=Phil |url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411907&c=1 |title=THE unveils broad, rigorous new rankings methodology |publisher=Times Higher Education |date= |accessdate=16 September 2010}}</ref> The names of the categories and the weighting of each was modified in the final methodology, released on 16 September 2010.<ref name="Methodology"/> The final methodology also included the weighting signed to each of the 13 indicators, shown below:<ref name="Methodology"/>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Overall indicator !! Individual indicators !! Percentage weightings
|-
| Industry Income – innovation||
* Research income from industry (per academic staff)
||
*2.5%
|-
| International diversity ||
* Ratio of international to domestic staff
* Ratio of international to domestic students
||
*3%
*2%
|-
| Teaching – the learning environment||
* Reputational survey (teaching)
* PhDs awards per academic
* Undergrad. admitted per academic
* Income per academic
* PhDs/undergraduate degrees awarded
||
*15%
*6%
*4.5%
*2.25%
*2.25%
|-
| Research – volume, income and reputation||
* Reputational survey (research)
* Research income (scaled)
* Papers per research and academic staff
* Public research income/ total research income
||
*19.5%
*5.25%
*4.5%
*0.75%
|-
| Citations – research influence||
* Citation impact (normalised average citation per paper)
||
*32.5%
|}
The ''Times Higher Education'' billed the methodology as "robust, transparent and sophisticated," stating that the final methodology was selected after considering 10 months of "detailed consultation with leading experts in global higher education," 250 pages of feedback from "50 senior figures across every continent" and 300 postings on its website.<ref name="Methodology"/> The overall ranking score was calculated by making [[Standard score|Z-scores]] all datasets to standardize different data types on a common scale to better make comparisons among data.<ref name="Methodology"/>
The reputational component of the rankings (34.5 percent of the overall score – 15 percent for teaching and 19.5 percent for research) came from an Academic Reputation Survey conducted by [[Thomson Reuters]] in spring 2010. The survey gathered 13,388 responses among scholars "statistically representative of global higher education's geographical and subject mix."<ref name="Methodology"/> The magazine's category for "industry income – innovation" came from a sole indicator, institution's research income from industry scaled against the number of academic staff." The magazine stated that it used this data as "proxy for high-quality knowledge transfer" and planned to add more indicators for the category in future years.<ref name="Methodology"/>
Data for [[citation impact]] (measured as a normalized average citation per paper), comprising 32.5 percent of the overall score, came from 12,000 [[academic journal]]s [[Citation index|indexed]] by Thomson Reuters' large [[Web of Science]] database over the five years from 2004 to 2008. The ''Times'' stated that articles published in 2009–2010 have not yet completely accumulated in the database.<ref name="Methodology"/> The normalization of the data differed from the previous rankings system and is intended to "reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas," so that institutions with high levels of research activity in the [[life science]]s and other areas with high citation counts will not have an unfair advantage over institutions with high levels of research activity in the [[social science]]s, which tend to use fewer citations on average.<ref name="Methodology"/>
The magazine announced on 5 September 2011 that its 2011–2012 World University Rankings would be published on 6 October 2011.<ref name="Launch Date">Phil Baty, "[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=417345&c=1 World University Rankings launch date revealed]" (5 September 2011). ''Times Higher Education''.</ref> At the same time, the magazine revealed changes to the ranking formula that will be introduced with the new rankings. The methodology will continue to use 13 indicators across five broad categories and will keep its "fundamental foundations," but with some changes. Teaching and research will each remain 30 percent of the overall score, and industry income will remain at 2.5 percent. However, a new "international outlook – staff, students and research" will be introduced and will make up 7.5 percent of the final score. This category will include the proportion of international staff and students at each institution (included in the 2011–2012 ranking under the category of "international diversity"), but will also add the proportion of research papers published by each institution that are co-authored with at least one international partner. One 2011–2012 indicator, the institution's public research income, will be dropped.<ref name="Launch Date"/>
On 13 September 2011, the ''Times Higher Education'' announced that its 2011–2012 list will only rank the top 200 institutions. Phil Baty wrote that this was in the "interests of fairness," because "the lower down the tables you go, the more the data bunch up and the less meaningful the differentials between institutions become." However, Baty wrote that the rankings would include 200 institutions that fall immediately outside the official top 200 according to its data and methodology, but this "best of the rest" list from 201 to 400 would be unranked and listed alphabetically. Baty wrote that the magazine intentionally only ranks around 1 percent of the world's universities in a recognition that "not every university should aspire to be one of the global research elite."<ref>Phil Baty. "[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=417429&c=2 The top 200 – and the best of the rest]" (13 September 2011), ''Times Higher Education''.</ref>
===Reception===
The reception to the methodology was varied.
Ross Williams of the [[Melbourne Institute]], commenting on the 2010–2011 draft, stated that the proposed methodology would favour more focused "science-based institutions with relatively few undergraduates" at the expense of institutions with more comprehensive programmes and undergraduates, but also stated that the indicators were "academically robust" overall and that the use of scaled measures would reward productivity rather than overall influence.<ref>Andrew Trounson, "[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/science-bias-will-affect-local-rankings/story-e6frgcjx-1225877209849 Science bias will affect local rankings]" (9 June 2010). ''[[The Australian]]''.</ref> [[Steve Smith (academic)|Steve Smith]], president of [[Universities UK]], praised the new methodology as being "less heavily weighted towards subjective assessments of reputation and uses more robust citation measures," which "bolsters confidence in the evaluation method."<ref>Steve Smith, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-uk-performance.html Pride before the fall?] (16 September 2010). ''Times Higher Education'' World University Rankings.</ref> [[David Willetts]], British [[Department for Business, Innovation and Skills|Minister of State for Universities and Science]] praised the rankings, noting that "reputation counts for less this time, and the weight accorded to quality in teaching and learning is greater."<ref>"[http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-uk-education.html Global path for the best of British]," (16 September 2010). ''Times Higher Education'' World University Rankings.</ref>
-->
==2011–2012 Ранкілері==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{{University ranking systems}}
[[Санат:Білім]]
[[Санат:Жоғарғы оқу орындары]]
| 