What's new

Global University Rankings ‘must change’ in response to rise of China

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China
Global University Rankings ‘must change’ in response to rise of China

Rebalancing of global higher education promises end of era in which institutions all ‘strive to be the same as Harvard’, says professor

Research metrics and the university rankings that are constructed on the back of them need to be reshaped to keep up with the growing strength of Chinese higher education, according to a Beijing-based assessment expert.

Hamish Coates, a professor in Tsinghua University’s Institute of Education, said that Western-oriented metrics were struggling to keep pace with an increasingly complex higher education landscape in which universities’ missions were more varied and their achievements were judged in a regional rather than a global context.

“We may be reaching the end of this singular striving to all be the same as Harvard,” said Professor Coates, formerly a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne.

This trend was already evident in China, Professor Coates argued. “There’s been a shift away from 20 years of a unidimensional way of seeing higher education to a bidimensional [perspective] that takes into account not just research outcomes but also contributions in distinct fields and regions,” he said.

“None of that gets picked up in these metrics, which were conceived 20 years ago and are now waning in their usefulness.

“It isn’t as sexy to publish that Jinan University makes an interesting contribution to its province as it is to say how many universities have come close to Harvard standard. But that is the more complex reality we find ourselves in as we move into a world that isn’t all seeking to be like the east coast of the US or the hinterland around London.”

Professor Coates said that China had, to some extent, “curated the rankings movement around its own benchmarking needs” when Shanghai Jiao Tong University constructed the first globally recognised university league table in 2003.

But he argued that with the recent advent of the Double First Class initiative, which will channel significant amounts of additional funding to 42 universities, the country needed new ways of evaluating its own progress.

“The university that studies silk and produces the best silk in the world will be recognised in terms of that distinct contribution,” Professor Coates said. “There’s no pretence that that’s going to be benchmark-able against silk research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

Professor Coates said that Western-focused metrics often failed to capture the reams of research literature published in Chinese – or, for that matter, in Spanish. And they had an increasingly hard time distinguishing between nationality and geography as Chinese-born academics – who are estimated to produce some 50 per cent of global science – moved between countries.

He Lianzhen, vice-president of international affairs at Zhejiang University near Shanghai, said that her institution recognised the “importance and necessity” of rankings as a mirror of its strengths and shortcomings. “But we believe a good university should not and will not take grade and ranking as its priority,” she said.

“No matter what indicators the rankings use, as long as we’re doing well in research and education, we’ll do well in rankings.”

Times Higher Education, in addition to its research-focused World University Rankings, has pioneered the development of teaching-led rankings informed by student engagement surveys, and is due to release its first data on universities’ efforts towards meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals next month. It has also indicated that the 2020 World University Rankings, which will be released in September, are likely to be the last using the current methodology, with consultation planned on proposed changes.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rankings-must-change-response-rise-china
 
China now has many of the world best universities with world most talented students, but because global university ranking institutions always assess universities based on western-oriented metrics , it's very hard for Chinese schools to have a good ranking.
 
But there comes the problem of information sharing in China. Chinese platforms are going global but it will take time for the rest of the world to be onboard on those platforms which project the daily life of any country. Chinese universities might be as good as western but how the world will know what progress you made in different fields when there is a firewall filters.
 
But there comes the problem of information sharing in China. Chinese platforms are going global but it will take time for the rest of the world to be onboard on those platforms which project the daily life of any country. Chinese universities might be as good as western but how the world will know what progress you made in different fields when there is a firewall filters.
Firewall is to block **** and China hostile propaganda sites, 99.999% foreign sites are not blocked in China.
 
Firewall is to block **** and China hostile propaganda sites, 99.999% foreign sites are not blocked in China.
To be frank people know very little about Chinese people. There are no platforms to interact with them. Most of the people who interact with rest of the world are sitting outside of China. China should have allowed big internet companies to enter Chinese market by asking the companies to open their offices in China. So if something is anti state they could have easily dealt with it. About education China need to project them selves on those platforms. In simple " Get it seen, Get it sold" . I hear this forum is also blocked in China.
 
Global University Rankings ‘must change’ in response to rise of China

Rebalancing of global higher education promises end of era in which institutions all ‘strive to be the same as Harvard’, says professor

Research metrics and the university rankings that are constructed on the back of them need to be reshaped to keep up with the growing strength of Chinese higher education, according to a Beijing-based assessment expert.

Hamish Coates, a professor in Tsinghua University’s Institute of Education, said that Western-oriented metrics were struggling to keep pace with an increasingly complex higher education landscape in which universities’ missions were more varied and their achievements were judged in a regional rather than a global context.

“We may be reaching the end of this singular striving to all be the same as Harvard,” said Professor Coates, formerly a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne.

This trend was already evident in China, Professor Coates argued. “There’s been a shift away from 20 years of a unidimensional way of seeing higher education to a bidimensional [perspective] that takes into account not just research outcomes but also contributions in distinct fields and regions,” he said.

“None of that gets picked up in these metrics, which were conceived 20 years ago and are now waning in their usefulness.

“It isn’t as sexy to publish that Jinan University makes an interesting contribution to its province as it is to say how many universities have come close to Harvard standard. But that is the more complex reality we find ourselves in as we move into a world that isn’t all seeking to be like the east coast of the US or the hinterland around London.”

Professor Coates said that China had, to some extent, “curated the rankings movement around its own benchmarking needs” when Shanghai Jiao Tong University constructed the first globally recognised university league table in 2003.

But he argued that with the recent advent of the Double First Class initiative, which will channel significant amounts of additional funding to 42 universities, the country needed new ways of evaluating its own progress.

“The university that studies silk and produces the best silk in the world will be recognised in terms of that distinct contribution,” Professor Coates said. “There’s no pretence that that’s going to be benchmark-able against silk research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

Professor Coates said that Western-focused metrics often failed to capture the reams of research literature published in Chinese – or, for that matter, in Spanish. And they had an increasingly hard time distinguishing between nationality and geography as Chinese-born academics – who are estimated to produce some 50 per cent of global science – moved between countries.

He Lianzhen, vice-president of international affairs at Zhejiang University near Shanghai, said that her institution recognised the “importance and necessity” of rankings as a mirror of its strengths and shortcomings. “But we believe a good university should not and will not take grade and ranking as its priority,” she said.

“No matter what indicators the rankings use, as long as we’re doing well in research and education, we’ll do well in rankings.”

Times Higher Education, in addition to its research-focused World University Rankings, has pioneered the development of teaching-led rankings informed by student engagement surveys, and is due to release its first data on universities’ efforts towards meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals next month. It has also indicated that the 2020 World University Rankings, which will be released in September, are likely to be the last using the current methodology, with consultation planned on proposed changes.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rankings-must-change-response-rise-china

The great Chinese education system is unable to make give a single CEO of any reputed institution of excellence.
 
The great Chinese education system is unable to make give a single CEO of any reputed institution of excellence.
Our CEOs are working for our own companies, not foreign firms, we Chinese do business our own way which foreigners have trouble to adapt and we do it very successfully. You Indians only work for foreigners like what you did in the past 3 hundred years and that's why India can never become a self reliant country with self respect of their own.
 
Our CEOs are working for our own companies, not foreign firms, we Chinese do business our own way which foreigners have trouble to adapt and we do it very successfully. You Indians only work for foreigners like what you did in the past 3 hundred years and that's why India can never become a self reliant country with self respect of their own.

No that is not true. You guys work a lot for multinationals as piza men and waiters. It's a matter of role you are offered.
 
The great Chinese education system is unable to make give a single CEO of any reputed institution of excellence.

I think it's more impressive to create companies that rival Silicon Valley tech giants than to have one member of your race become the top employee of a Silicon Valley tech giant.
 
Chinese like to start our own companies and be our own bosses, we don't like to hire Indians to be our CEOs.

China has more 'unicorn' start-ups than the US

  • 22 October 2019
China has the world's largest number of "unicorns," privately-held start-up firms valued at more than $1bn (£771m), according to a new report.

The country has produced 206 unicorns while the US has 203, the China-based Hurun Institute reported.

Together the two countries are home to more than 80% of the world's unicorns.

It comes as Washington and Beijing fight a trade war and jostle to become the world's technology leader.

"China and the US dominate... despite representing only half of the world's GDP and a quarter of the world's population," said Hurun Report Chairman Rupert Hoogewerf.

Chinese payments company Ant Financial tops the list with a valuation of $150bn.

Founded in 2014, Ant Financial's main business is online payment platform Alipay, which was spun out of e-commerce giant Alibaba.

China's Bytedance ranks second, with a valuation of $75bn. The fast-growing technology firm owns popular video-sharing platform TikTok.

Chinese ride-sharing company Didi Chuxing rounds out the top three, valued at $55bn.

High-profile US companies including home-rental site Airbnb, office space firm WeWork and electronic cigarette maker Juul also feature in the top 10.

Technology tensions
The report comes at a time of tense relations between the world's two largest economies.

The US and China have been embroiled in a trade battle for the past year. Their power struggle has also played out in the technology sector, with Chinese telecoms giant Huawei becoming a central part of their dispute.

The US claims Huawei - the world's largest maker of telecoms equipment - poses a national security risk and has put trade restrictions on the firm.

The company has consistently denied the allegations, and many in China argue the US is trying to curb the country's technology ambitions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50134460

China overtakes US on Fortune Global 500 list
JUL 24, 2019
For first time, global list features more firms from China than US companies

The new Fortune Global 500 list, published by the magazine this week, sees more China-based companies – including 10 from Taiwan – make the list than those from the US in what Allan Murray, Fortunepresident and CEO, describes as marking ‘an important world power transition’.

The record number of Chinese companies making the list has hit 129 – up from 120 last year, and overtaking the number of US firms that have made the annual ranking of the world’s largest companies. This year, 121 US companies make the list, down from 126 in 2018.

In an editorial announcing the new list, Murray notes that while the Fortune ranking is based on company size, ‘size is not everything’.

‘Many of the largest Chinese companies are state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that owe their heft to government-supported monopolies in the world’s most populous market, and aren’t necessarily the world’s most dynamic companies,’ he writes. In fact, the percentage of SOEs on the list has grown from 76 percent last year to 80 percent today.

Despite this, the swing to the East is important, Murray adds, stating that ‘the list signals a significant global power shift. Ten years ago, there were only 43 Chinese companies on the list; 20 years ago, there were just eight. And a boatload of fast-growing private Chinese companies are rapidly working their way up the ranks.’

While Walmart holds on to the top spot for the sixth consecutive year – and for the 14th time since 1995 – and Royal Dutch Shell takes the third-place spot, three Chinese SOEs make the top five: Sinopec in second place, China National Petroleum in fourth and State Grid in fifth.

Another notable entry is Saudi Aramco; a newcomer to the list, the Saudi giant enters the rankings in sixth place. Fortune says the firm ‘netted $111 bn in profits, nearly double Apple’s earnings’ and ending the Cupertino, California electronics giant’s three-year reign as the Fortune Global 500’s most profitable company.

Xiaomi, another Chinese firm and a rival smartphone maker, also enters the list for the first time (at number 468), reportedly rewarding its 20,000 employees with 1,000 shares each.

https://www.irmagazine.com/case-studies/china-overtakes-us-fortune-global-500-list
 
No that is not true. You guys work a lot for multinationals as piza men and waiters. It's a matter of role you are offered.

this is the typical overseas Indian.

proxy-image
proxy-image
proxy-image


why do you keep throwing stones from a glass house?
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom