Shortcomings of Higher Education Evaluation Systems

in International Journal of Chinese Education
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Higher Education Evaluation Systems supply information for diverse stakeholders. A “one size fits all” approach in university rankings is not enough. Looking to the future, evaluation may need to take into account criteria such as links with employers, lifelong education, implications of digitization, and interdisciplinary and interinstitutional collaboration across borders. The extensive possibilities of today’s research data based analyses are analysed, against the background of a whole industry devoted to this. Shortcomings, challenges and unintended consequences of the current approach are discussed. Impact analyses are seen as one of the ways forward, taking into account contributions to societies and their transformations. Diversity, “glocal” mindset and international collaboration are suggested as additional criteria for the competitive rankings of the future.

  • AstinA. W. & AntonioA.L. (2012). Assessment for Excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarelliM. D. & SachsenmeierP. (eds.). (1977). Educational Research in Europe. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

  • ChandrahamB. & FallowS. (eds.). (2009). Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HazelkornE.CoatesH. & McCormickA. (eds.). Handbook on Quality Performance and Accountability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Ramakrishna S. (2010). The Global Challenge—As the world league tables gain influence they need to reflect the multi-faceted nature of universities’ activities; League tables must reflect institution’s multi-faceted strengths. Times Higher Education THE International 2011a p.30 15 July.

  • Ramakrishna S. (2011A). Global Comparison of Universities: varsity rankings still a work in progress 2011b p.A24.

  • Ramakrishna S. (2011B). Work on Facts behind the Figures Time Higher Education 10 March p.17.

  • RamakrishnaS. (2015a). Nurturing Net Generation Graduates with Global Skills Eurasian Higher Education Leaders’ Forum pp.3646. Astana: Indiago Print Ltd.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RamakrishnaS. (2015b). Strategies for the Universities to be Locally Engaged while Globally Visible. Asian Journal of Innovation & Policy4(3) 271287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RamakrishnaS. and NgDaniel. (2011). The Changing Face of Innovation: Is it Shifting to Asia?World Scientific Publishers p.250.

  • RamakrishnaS. and KrishnaV.V. (2011). Emergence of Asian Universities as Centres of New Knowledge and a Base for National Competitiveness. In: Paths to a World Class University: Lessons from Practices and Experiences. Nian Cai LiuQi Wang and Ying Cheng (eds.) pp. 205236. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 66 66 9
Full Text Views 2 2 0
PDF Downloads 3 3 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0