期刊文献+

作为政策工具的大学排行榜 被引量:20

University Ranking as Policy Instrument
原文传递
导出
摘要 公共信息机制包括大学排行及类似的一些分类工具,一般是运用从高校或公共部门获取的客观或主观数据并向有关竞争对手的比较单位赋值进行"质量测量"而构建起来的,这种机制正日益成为衡量和比较第三级教育机构绩效所依赖的方式。探讨其作用和效果,通过对被用于公共绩效责任目的的各类排名方法进行分类,从政治经济学的角度对排名现象进行分析发现,虽然各种排名做法有各自的优点和缺点,但加强第三级教育机构绩效责任,对指导国家教育政策制定和高校发展实践具有重要意义。 The public information mechanism includes rankings and some similar classification instruments, which is generally constructed by utilizing the objective or subjective data obtained from the university or public departments, and conducting quality measurement toward the related comparing unit assignment of the competitors. This kind of mechanism is increasingly becoming the way of measuring and comparing the performance of tertiary educational institution. To explore its function and effectiveness, through classifying all kinds of ranking methods used for public performance accountability, from the view of the political economy, by analyzing the ranking phenomena, we can find that although all kinds of rankings have their own advantages and disadvantages, to strengthen the performance accountability of the tertiary educational institution is of great significance to guide the national policy-making and the university development practice of the developing countries and industrialized countries.
出处 《教育研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2010年第1期59-68,82,共11页 Educational Research
关键词 第三级教育机构 绩效责任 排行榜 tertiary educational institution, performance accountability, rankings
  • 相关文献

参考文献21

  • 1Usher, A. and Savino, M. A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables [R].Edueation Policy Institute: Canadian Education Report Series.2006.
  • 2Pace, C.R., and Wallace, D. G. Evaluation of Institutional Programs[J]. Review of Educational Research, 1954, (4).
  • 3Stuit, D. Evaluation of Institutions and Programs[J]. Review of Educational Research, 1960,(4).
  • 4Clarke, M. Some Guidelines for Academic Quality Ranking[J]. Higher Education in Europe, 2002, (4).
  • 5Brooks, R.L. Measuring University Quality[J]. Review of Higher Education, 2005, ( 1 ).
  • 6Prnvan, D. and Avercromby, K. University League Tables and Rankings: A Critical Analysis [R]. CHEMS Paper , 2000,30.
  • 7Eccles, C. The Use of University Rankings in the United Kingdom[J].Higher Education in Europe, 2002, (4).
  • 8Hodges, Shannon. Authentic Values and Ersatz Standards: Making Sense of College Rankings[J]. Academe, 2002, (6).
  • 9Cartter, A. M.An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Educa- tion [M]. Washington. DC: American Council on Education.1966.
  • 10Diamond, N., and Graham, H.D. How Should We rate Research Universities? [ J ]. Change, 2000, (4).

同被引文献169

引证文献20

二级引证文献179

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部