20 octobre 2012

Yes, but did they get a job? Methods for creating an effective system of measuring labor market outcomes in higher education

CSHE - Center for Studies in Higher EducationRichard W. Moore, Professor of Management, College of Business Administration and Economics at California State University, Northridge; Kenneth Chapman, Professor of Economics, California State University, Northridge. Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 4:00pm - 5:30pm, 768 Evans Hall (map).
On January 27, 2012 at the University of Michigan, President Obama laid out his vision for a federal initiative that would reward colleges and universities with increases in federal student aid if colleges restrained cost increases and increased their accountability to the public . At the heart of this initiative is a new “College Scorecard” that, according to the White House, will “assist prospective student and their families in comparing colleges before they choose using key measures of college affordability and value.” There are five measures in the score card, beginning with the cost of attendance, a series of four graduation rates, student loan repayment rates and student loan debt. This presentation focuses on the fifth measure, “Earnings Potential”.
The “Earnings Potential” measure, unlike the other measures in the scorecard, is not specified. In this presentation we will briefly outline the renewed interest in the labor market experience of college students. Then we will report on our experience following up the labor market experience of 44,000 students from California State University, Northridge using a state-wide earnings data base and university transcript file. This a powerful method allowed us to find over 76% of graduates in first year after exit and 72% five years later. We will describe in detail the method we developed for transparently measuring the earnings and labor market experience of college students, both graduates and dropouts. The system we developed can easily track earnings over time, we have earnings data for 20 years on some cohorts. We have measures that go down to the department and program level. Finally, based on our experience, we lay out an agenda for developing a state wide system in California that can produce comparable labor market outcomes on an on-going basis, objectively and cost efficiently, for all segments of higher education, and fill in the blank in the President’s scorecard.
Authors: Richard W. Moore, Kenneth Chapman, Bettina Huber, Mark Shors
Dr. Richard W. Moore currently serves as a professor of management in the College of Business Administration and Economics at California State University, Northridge. His teaching specialties include: organizational behavior, leadership and human resources management at both the graduate and undergraduate level. He has twice won the outstanding teaching award in the College’s MBA program. For six years he was the Director of Graduate Programs in the College of Business. Currently he is teaching Organizational Complexity and Change in university’s first doctoral program in Education. In 2005 Moore was Fulbright Senior Scholar at Bandung Institute of Technology in Bandung, Indonesia.
Dr. Moore is a nationally and internationally recognized expert in measuring the outcomes and performance of public programs, with both quantitative and qualitative methods.. He recently directed a state-wide analysis of One-Stop Career Centers for the California Workforce Investment Board. He is also developing a performance management system for the City of Los Angeles’s FamilySource Network.
Internationally Moore has consulted for the World Bank in East Timor, Qatar and Indonesia since 1988. His work with the World Bank has included project development and evaluation in the education, training and microfinance, as well developing human resource strategy at a national level. He has also worked as a consultant to Deloitt Touche and the government of Hong Kong evaluating Asia’s first displaced worker retraining program.
Dr. Moore has worked as an Analyst on Higher Education Policy Issues since the 1970’s. Recently he wrote a series of papers for the California Postsecondary Education Commission on how to assess the performance of public higher education in California. In the past he has worked on a variety of student aid policies and the role of proprietary institutions in higher education.
Dr. Moore is the author of many scholarly and industry publications. Recently the Upjohn Institute published his book Training That Works an analysis of California’s Employment Training Panel program. He is an experienced trainer working with managers in both the public and private sectors. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. from UCLA.
Professor Kenneth Chapman has been working as a labor economist since receiving his Ph. D. from University of Minnesota in 1986. He has worked as an economics professor at S.U.N.Y. Buffalo, and California State University Northridge. His academic work has been published in American Economic Review , The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , Law and Contemporary Problems , and elsewhere. An article in Finance Letters won the journal’s 2005 article of the year award.
Recent public policy work includes a series of pamphlets for the California Post Secondary Education Commission dealing with changes in affordability of Californian universities over time, as well as the relationship between per capita income and educational attainment. Most recently, Professor Chapman has participated in a review of the Integrated Service Delivery program for the California Workforce Investment Board. The initial phase of this evaluation is currently available on the CWIB website.

Posté par pcassuto à 21:25 - - Permalien [#]

How New Kinds of Professional Doctorates are Changing Higher Education Institutions

CSHE - Center for Studies in Higher EducationBy Ami Zusman. Thursday, November 1, 2012, 12noon -- 1:30pm, 768 Evans Hall (map)
Over the past decade, new types of doctorates – new “professional practice” doctorates – have emerged in a number of fields, ranging from physical therapy and nursing to information management and bioethics. Nationally, programs in these new professional practice doctoral fields have skyrocketed from near zero to over 500 programs today, with about 10,000 degrees awarded just in the past year and roughly 35,000-40,000 students now enrolled. Many more programs are in the planning stages. Many of these new programs are being offered at institutions that a decade ago had no doctoral studies. These institutions are necessarily facing significant challenges as – or if – they transition into doctoral education.
These trends raise significant policy questions, for example: What has driven the growth of professional practice doctorates? (an increasingly complex work environment? an unnecessary ratcheting of credential requirements? institutional prestige-seeking?) Will these programs produce professionals who can serve their clients and organizations better? Will they limit access to the profession? How will these professional practice doctorates affect traditional institutional missions, especially at teaching-oriented institutions? What are the resource implications for institutions and for higher education more broadly?
My study uses both national data and selected case studies to address the following questions: (1) What have been the trends in the spread of new professional practice doctorates in the U.S. over the past decade? (2) What is driving the increased credential requirements in these fields and subsequent emergence of new types of doctorates? (3) How have new professional practice doctoral programs impacted institutions, especially those that had not previously offered doctorates?
Ami Zusman
is a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley. Before retiring, she served as Coordinator of Graduate Education Planning and Analysis for the University of California system, where she directed long-range planning, policy, and student-outcomes assessment of graduate academic and professional programs for the UC system. She authored or co-authored a number of reports for the UC system, including analyses of professional doctorates, self-supporting graduate programs, interdisciplinary graduate education, and workforce projections for graduate degree recipients. She has published on a variety of higher education issues, including university/state conflicts, current challenges facing higher education, and school/college collaborations. She received her Ph.D. in Higher Education Policy from UC Berkeley.

Posté par pcassuto à 21:20 - - Permalien [#]


El día jueves 04 de Octubre se llevó a cabo el Taller correspondiente al Proyecto VINCULAENTORNO en el cual participa RECLA como adscrito a este proyecto ALFA IIILa Dra Ana Velazco, Presidenta de la Red y Directora del Centro de Educación Continua de la PUCP,  presentó el contexto de la "EDUCACION CONTINUA EN EL PERU y RECLA".
El taller conto con la presencia de la Rectora de la Universidad Cayetano Heredia y representantes del Ministerio de la Producción y las autoridades de Proyecto, Marian Iriarte Universidad del País Vasco, España.
La Dra Ana Velazco, Presidenta de la Red y Directora del Centro de Educación Continua de la PUCP,  presentó el contexto de la "EDUCACION CONTINUA EN EL PERU y RECLA". El taller conto con la presencia de la Rectora de la Universidad Cayetano Heredia y representantes del Ministerio de la Producción y las autoridades de Proyecto, Marian Iriarte Universidad del País Vasco, España.


Posté par pcassuto à 21:13 - - Permalien [#]

Critical Perspectives on ‘Open-ness’ in the Digital University

Society for Research into Higher Education - Advancing knowledge, informing policy, ehancing practiceCritical Perspectives on ‘Open-ness’ in the Digital University University of Edinburgh- David Hume Tower conference room - map at www.ed.ac.uk. Friday November 2nd 2012, 12-4pm.
Openness and impacts in academia using social media, Jane Tinkler, London School of Economics

Academic communication is changing. Traditional dissemination methods are being supplemented by digital technologies that academics can use to share their research with each other and external stakeholders and thereby help their work to create impact. But what are the real benefits of using social media to share academic work? How does this openness lead to greater impact? And what are the potential problems with this form of short, immediate and frequent communication? This session draws on the findings of a three-year research project examining the ways that academic work can be better communicated in order to maximise its impact.
Is University Scholarship becoming more Open? Or just more Digital? Robin Goodfellow, Open University

The developing digital context for scholarship in the University brings pressures and opportunities for change in both the established practices of scholarly communication and conventional ideas about who participates in it. But how far is digital practice amongst university academics really open to the engagement of non-professional scholars, and what are the implications of internet knowledge cultures for the processes and ethics of academic scholarship?  In this talk I will use examples of work in the field of Digital Scholarship that is currently going on at The Open University (see http://www8.open.ac.uk/iet/main/research-scholarship/our-research-scholarship-programmes/digital-scholarship) to explore these questions, and to work towards a concept of scholarship in the digital university that is committed to both the democratisation of the academy and the furtherance of academic approaches to knowledge and learning.
Open Educational Resources: salvation or subjectification? Jeremy Knox, University of Edinburgh

This presentation will critique the implementation of Open Educational Resources in higher education.  Open access has emerged as a prominent debate in the field of distance and digitally-mediated learning, in which technology is advanced as both the vehicle for widening participation and the solution to the perceived elitism of the traditional institution.  OER have been in the forefront of this dialogue with claims of social transformation and global deliverance from poverty; however they remain significantly under-theorised.  While OER literature often emphasises the removal of barriers to information, it fails to adequately address the consequences of open access in terms of education itself, tending to make assumptions about the capacity for individuals to act purely in an autonomous fashion as ‘self-directed’ learners.  This paper will therefore problematise the ways in which the OER movement implies particular notions of freedom and independence in the advancement of their educational agenda.
This event is free for SRHE members and University of Edinburgh Staff.

Posté par pcassuto à 21:09 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES)

fdf logoThe national Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) will both run in Spring 2013. Institutions are invited to register their interest in participating in either or both surveys by e-mailing surveys@heacademy.ac.uk by 30 November 2012.
Student experience surveys can be an important source of information about students' learning experiences. We support higher education institutions and disciplines to use survey data for enhancement purposes.
Our work is centred around three different surveys: National Student Survey (NSS).
We support institutions and disciplines to interpret and use NSS data to make real improvements in learning and teaching. In addition to disseminating research and examples of good practice, we produce subject specific analyses of the data, and directly support institutions and departments to effectively explore and use their results. Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES).
PRES and PTES comprise a unique service run by the HEA and made available to UK HEIs which have postgraduate provision. The surveys allow institutions to collect feedback on the experiences of their research and taught postgraduate students, in an anonymous and user-friendly way. Each institution’s data is confidential to that institution, ensuring result are used for enhancement purposes rather than for league tables. Participating institutions are able to benchmark their results against the national sector aggregate and those of similar institutions by joining benchmarking clubs.

Posté par pcassuto à 20:53 - - Permalien [#]

Call for expressions of interest to host the INQAAHE Secretariat

After 5 years of hosting the INQAAHE Secretariat by NVAO the contract between INQAAHE and NVAO will come to an end on 30 June 2013. Therefore, the INQAAHE Board is seeking expressions of interest to host the Secretariat from July 2013 to December 2015. The contract between INQAAHE and the hosting agency may be prolonged for a second term until June 2018.
If you are interested in hosting the INQAAHE secretariat from July 2013, please let us know!

INQAAHE member agencies are invited to express their interest in hosting the INQAAHE Secretariat by 1 December 2012 by sending an expression of interest to the secretariat (secretariat@inqaahe.org). In the attachments you will find the details of the Call for expressions, as well as the Secretariat-specifications.
Call for EOI to host the INQAAHE Secretariat. Secretariat-specifications.

Posté par pcassuto à 20:46 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :

Times Higher Education World University Rankings

http://www.ireg-observatory.org/templates/sub_business2/images/ireg_top.pngTimes Higher Education (THE), working in cooperation with Thomson Reuters, has unveiled its latest university ranking findings, delivering three main products. THE’s World University Rankings exercise examines data across 13 different indicators to calculate the 400 top universities globally. Its World Reputation Rankings aim to provide insight into the 100 universities enjoying the “most powerful global university brands” by virtue of the “expert judgment of senior, published academics”. And the THE 100 under 50 rankings highlight the top 100 universities worldwide that have been in existence for fewer than 50 years.
This year, THE has introduced no methodological changes from its 2011-12 rankings exercise. Five main areas provide the framework for THE’s consideration of university excellence in terms of its World University Rankings. These include:
  • teaching (with a strong emphasis on “the learning environment”)
  • research (as determined by volume of output, income generated and associated reputation)
  • citations (which address issues of  “research influence”)
  • industry income (which considers “how much research income an institution earns from industry, scaled against the number of academic staff it employs”), and
  • international outlook (as determined by the diversity of its students and faculty, and international engagement by faculty in their research and publication activities).

The 100 under 50 rankings are determined by the same 13 indicators as the World University Rankings, but give less weight to reputational factors, whereas reputation is obviously the overriding indicator for the World Reputation Rankings.
In terms of specific results and broader trends, the theme of “Asia rising” raised in September by the 2012/13 QS World University Ranking is clearly reinforced by the THE rankings. THE analysis notes that the world’s longstanding elite institutions in Europe and North America would be wise to look carefully over their shoulders specifically at the ambitious and fast-improving universities of East Asia, but more broadly at an emerging crop of contenders eager for recognition on the global rankings stage.
2012-13 Times Higher Education World University Rankings: www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/.

Posté par pcassuto à 20:43 - - Permalien [#]

Developing a framework for the UNESCO Global Learning City Index

http://uil.unesco.org/uploads/media/Instutute.plus.flags.pngThe building of a learning region/area is one of the operational approaches which have been adopted in the international community to promote lifelong learning for all. Given the rapid pace of urbanisation, cities are shouldering increasing responsibilities for policy-making and provision of lifelong learning opportunities. A global network of learning cities would provide technical support to many cities, and promote policy dialogue and peer-learning among them, as well as capacity development. During its 7th Session, in May 2012, the Governing Board of the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) approved the plan for UIL to establish the UNESCO Global Learning Cities Network (UNESCO-GLCN). This initiative received good support from the informal consultative meeting on UNESCO-GLCN held on 25 May on the occasion of the UIL 60th anniversary (see article), and from the recent ASEM Lifelong Learning Forum held in Copenhagen at the end of May 2012 (see article).
An important task in the preparation phase of this network is to develop the UNESCO Global Learning City Index – a set of key indicators for monitoring and assessing global learning cities. To this end, UIL held a workshop on developing a framework for the UNESCO Global Learning City Index from 3 to 5 July 2012 at its premises. Experts representing some founding partners of the UNESCO-GLCN, including the PASCAL Observatory, Bertelsmann Foundation, CISCO Systems, Beijing Municipal Education Commission, Kuwait University and the Cape Higher Education Consortium, participated in the workshop.
Through intensive group work and plenary discussions, the workshop identified indicators in the following three areas: (1) The wider benefits of building a learning city that covers individual empowerment and social cohesion; cultural and economic prosperity; and sustainable development. (2) Major building blocks of a learning city that covers inclusive learning from basic to higher education; revitalised community learning; effective learning for and in the workplace; extended use of modern learning technologies; enhanced quality and excellence in learning; and a vibrant culture of learning throughout life. (3) Fundamental conditions for building a learning city that covers vision, political will and commitment; governance and participation of all stakeholders; and mobilisation and utilisation of resources and potentials.
The outcomes of the workshop will be elaborated further in the 1st meeting of the International Consultative Committee for Establishing the UNESCO-GLCN, to be organised in Beijing in the autumn of 2012.

Posté par pcassuto à 19:28 - - Permalien [#]

Equity in European Higher Education

Final Seminar
The conference will deal with the topic "Equity in European Higher Education: State of the Research, Problems, Ideas and Perspectives". It will included special focuses on migration and lifelong learning in line with the second and third EQUNET reports (read the draft programme).
It will take place for a full day on 7th November 2012 at the University Foundation, Rue d’Egmont 11 Brussels (map).

At the end of its lifecycle, EquNet is organising a workshop in Brussels with the aim to aggregate energies from the main European networks and organisations active both in the higher education field and in equity-related activities, to discuss the importance of equity in EU higher education.
The seminar wants to be a genuine dialogue moment between Higher Education and social inclusion stakeholders in Brussels, and aims to:
    Contribute, starting from the results of the EquNet research and of similar exercises, to shaping EU and national policies in the field of Higher Education;
    Foster the exchange of research findings, working practices and ideas among relevant stakeholders and communities, in particular facilitating contact between the academic and the civil society communities;
    Present the EquNet set of HE equity indicators, a set of tools and methods developed to actually “measure” equity in European higher education.
At the end of its lifecycle, EquNet is organising a workshop in Brussels with the aim to aggregate energies from the main European networks and organisations active both in the higher education field and in equity-related activities, to discuss the importance of equity in EU higher education.
The seminar wants to be a genuine dialogue moment between Higher Education and social inclusion stakeholders in Brussels, and aims to:
    Contribute, starting from the results of the EquNet research and of similar exercises, to shaping EU and national policies in the field of Higher Education;
    Foster the exchange of research findings, working practices and ideas among relevant stakeholders and communities, in particular facilitating contact between the academic and the civil society communities;
    Present the EquNet set of HE equity indicators, a set of tools and methods developed to actually “measure” equity in European higher education.
Participation is open to representatives of stakeholders from the HE field (European HE associations, universities, experts, policy makers) and from the social inclusion field (NGOs, associations, trade unions). To register, kindly confirm by e-mailing beatrice.niyibigira@menon.org. A limited number of travel grants are available – these can be requested on a case by case basis by contacting beatrice.niyibigira@menon.org. You can download the programme here.
The EQUNET Repository is a unique collection of open accessibly documents dealing with Equity in Higher Education, and containing reports, presentations, academic papers and all other related materials.

Posté par pcassuto à 19:16 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :

Tips for managing the international office of your university

By Wessel Meijer. Have you recently started working in a managing position in an international office? Then you are undoubtedly faced with many challenges and issues: interesting ones and annoying ones. You will of course be competent enough to cope with the majority of these challenges yourself. However, there is always one issue that keeps on returning on your desk, that continues to chase you during the day or perhaps haunt you during the night. It could be related to strategy, organisation models, managing people, finance, time management, communication etc, perhaps even one of the following:
  • My rector is not interested in internationalisation. How do I still gain his support?
  • One of my staff members is ill for a long period, and I do not get a replacement. Help!
  • One of my staff members is not motivated, underperforms and is counting his days for his retirement. How do I bring back some enthusiasm?
  • I do not get enough money to achieve the objectives they expect me to achieve. What can I do?
  • My management plans to mainstream internationalisation, which means breaking up my international office and scattering its bits and pieces all around the university. How do I stop them?
  • My boss does not understand me, and does not want to listen. How do I catch the attention that I deserve?
  • I create glossy folders, send weekly e-newsletters, tweet like crazy and administer an International Office Facebook account. And still the departments do not notice us.
  • Yesterday the focus was on research partnerships in China, today we should put all priority on recruiting master students from Europe; and I was just informed that our future is solely dependent on the development of an International Summer School. How do I create one, long lasting, international strategy?

Do you recognise yourself in any of these dilemmas? Yes? The bad news is: this comes with the job of International Relations Manager, there is not much you can do about it. The good news is: there is help at hand, called ‘peer consulting’.
Peer consulting, what’s different?

Discussing your professional problems with colleagues that you trust, isn’t that as old as time? So what makes ‘peer consulting’ so different?

  • You do not know your peers and they do not know you. Fresh, fair and unbiased advice is guaranteed.
  • An environment facilitating combined knowledge and experience to trigger the best professional advice possible. Your peers all work in international offices, they know how things work. They are the best consultants, not theoretical academics that just talk in models.
  • A context of strict confidentiality is provided. This creates an open atmosphere and stimulates a fair expression of ideas.
  • A strict procedure is followed in order to get at the heart of the problem and to prevent pub talk solutions.

In the unlikely event that you are one of the unique international relations managers that never struggles with seemingly unsolvable problems, you will be the perfect peer consultant: helping your colleagues to solve their problems; and perhaps picking up interesting new knowledge and insights yourself.
What else is there?
Have you heard of the International Office (IO) managers’ tool box? It contains practical instruments ready to be used to create solutions for all sorts of problems you may encounter as an International Office Manager. Examples are:

  • The Boat Game to create quick mutual understanding in a group.
  • The SWOT Analysis to develop strategic priorities.
  • The International Office Task List to rationalise the activities of an IO
  • International Office Organisation Models to structure your office
  • The core quadrant game to better understand your own qualities and pitfalls
  • The leadership grid to make your leadership style explicit
  • The priority matrix to use your precious time effectively

How do you solve your challenges in your international office? Have you ever practised peer consulting? In what kind of setting?
You can learn more about all these topics and experience peer consulting with professionals from across Europe by joining the EAIE Academy course ‘Managing an international office today’ in Porto from 19–21 November. Register by 29 October 2012 to secure your spot!
Wessel Meijer is Deputy Director of the International Office of Radboud University Nijmegen and leading the team ‘projects and networks’. He is also an EAIE Academy trainer.

Posté par pcassuto à 19:11 - - Permalien [#]
Tags :