Juha Hedman

Expanding Education and Improving Odds? Participation in Higher Education in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s

This article focuses mainly on the key results of research on the differences in participation in higher education in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s. The recent discussion surrounding the methods of measuring participation in higher education is also considered. The results show that, in 1980, the odds for children of the well educated participating in higher education was 13 times greater than that of children of fathers with only a basic level of education. Since then, the trend has decreased slowly from 12 in 1985 to 10 in 1995. Despite the various egalitarian policy measures applied by the State, the difference in participation, indicated by the odds ratio 10, is still enormous, and the actual situation for youth with poor family backgrounds has not changed during the past decades. The persistent inequality of educational opportunity in relative terms revealed by the odds ratio, which the authors argue to be the appropriate measure for changes over time, is analysed further by exploring regional differences and the differences between various fields of study. It is shown that the real competition for higher education is among the well off. This is illustrated by a metaphor from bicycle racing: even if the tail-end cyclists reach the main pack, the front-runners widen their gap between the main pack.

World-wide university rankings: A Scandinavian approach

Although universities’ world rankings are popular, their design and methods still request considerable elaborations. The paper demonstrates some shortcomings in the Academic World Ranking of Universities (ARWU, Shanghai Jiao Tong University) ranking methods. One deficiency is that universities’ scale differences are neglected due to omitting the whole input side. By resampling and reanalyzing the ARWU data, the paper proposes an input-output analysis for measuring universities’ scientific productivity with special emphasis on those universities which meet the productivity threshold (i.e. share of output exceeds share of input) in a certain group of universities. The productivity analysis on Scandinavian universities evaluates multidisciplinary and specialized universities on their own terms; consequently the ranking based on scientific productivity deviates significantly from the ARWU.

Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input---output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries

The article introduces a relational input–output model for the productivity analysis of university research. The comparative analyses focus on top university research in hard sciences from 4 East Asian countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and 4 North European countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), universities of which get altogether 95 recognitions in the HEEACT Top 300 rankings in the Natural Sciences (Sci), Technology (Tec) or Clinical Medicine (Med). According to productivity ratings (A0, A, A+, A++), Taiwan receives 10 A++ ratings (Sci 5, Tec 5), Sweden 9 (Sci 4, Med 4, Tec 1) and Hong Kong 9 (Tec 4, Med 2, Sci 1). The smallest numbers of A++ ratings are found in Norway, 1 (Med) and Finland 3 (all in Med). The only university with an A++ rating in the top of all three fields is the National University of Singapore. The Pohang University of Science and Technology (South Korea) and the National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan) are exceptionally productive in Sci and Tec; Karolinska Institutet (Sweden) and the University of Helsinki (Finland) belong to the top in Med. Even though Northern European countries are ranked higher in the ‘knowledge economy indicators’, East Asians fare better by indicators of learning outcomes and by productivity of university research in Natural Sciences and Technology; North European countries are stronger in Clinical Medicine.

Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized

The paper asks to what extent the top 200 universities in scientific publishing in four research fields are the same universities that occupy the top 200 positions in global university rankings. In this article, the top 200 lists of universities in scientific publishing are compiled of universities’ contribution rates in four fields: biological, physical, social and life sciences. Out of some 4000 academic institutions included in InCites, the paper identifies 437 top publishing universities in at least one field. The paper analyses the extent to which those universities are covered in six global university rankings’ top 200 listings: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities (NTU), QS World University Rankings (QS), Times Higher Education World University rankings (THE), University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) and US News and World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR). Out of these rankings, URAP, NTU and USNWR are more distinctive than ARWU, QS and THE in covering the 437 top publishing universities in their top 200 listings. Therefore URAP, NTU and USNWR are utilized in analyzing top publishing universities’ chances to be recognized. The paper identifies a total of 64 top publishing universities in at least three out of four fields recognized without exception in the top 200 lists of NTU, URAP and USNWR; out of them 24 reside in the USA, 21 in the EU and 19 in the rest of the World. In addition, the paper identifies other (373) top publishing universities variably recognized by the relevant of the three rankings (in terms of odds) depending on the fields in which the universities reach the top 200; odds range from 0.01 (biological sciences) to 12.00 (life, social and biological sciences). The region of residence of these 373 universities also varies, so that those reaching the top 200 in life sciences reside most frequently in the EU, those reaching the top 200 in social sciences in the USA and those reaching the top 200 in physical or in biological sciences in the rest of the World.