Se ha dado a conocer el Ranking WEB de universidades en el mundo (6 mil universidades). Más abajo se muestran los resultados para las 100 universidades top de Amèrica Latina.
The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.
The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.
Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:
Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.
Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search.
Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.
Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.
The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight but maintaining the ratio 1:1:
The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students and scholars worldwide.
The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.
The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. PostScript and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.
The 2009 edition of the Ranking Web of World Universities (http://www.webometrics.info) shows important news. Most of them are due to changes done to improve the academic impact of the open web contents and to reduce the geographical bias of search engines. As a result, the US universities still lead the Ranking (MIT with its huge Open Courseware is again the first, followed by Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley), but the digital gap with their European counterparts (Cambridge and Oxford are in the region’s top) has been reduced. Even more important, some of the developing countries institutions reach high ranks, especially in Latin America where the University of Sao Paulo (38th) and UNAM (44th) benefits from the increasingly interconnected Brazilian and Mexican academic webspaces.
Several countries improves their performance including Taiwan and Saudi Arabia with strong web oriented strategies, Czech Republic (Charles), the leader for Eastern Europe, Spain (Complutense) and Portugal (Minho, Porto) with huge repositories and strong Open Access initiatives. Norway (NTNU, Oslo), Egypt could be also mentioned.
On the other side, the underrated countries are headed by France, with a very fragmented system, Korea, whose student-oriented websites are frequently duplicated, New Zealand, India or Argentina.
Africa is still monopolized by South African universities (Cape Town is the first, 405th), as well as Australian Universities are the best ranked for Oceania (Australian National University, 77th)
Other well performing institutions include Cornell or Caltech in the USA, Tokyo (24th) Toronto (28th), Hong Kong (91st), or Peking (104th). On the contrary, in positions below expected we find Yale, Princeton, Saint Petersburg, Seoul and the Indian Institutes of Science or Technology.
Check out also:
Ranking Web of Research Centers http://research.webometrics.info/
Ranking Web of Repositories http://repositories.webometrics.info/
Ranking Web of Hospitals http://hospitals.webometrics.info/
Ranking Web of Business Schools http://business-schools.webometrics.info/
El caso de los profesores adjuntos, como se les llama en los Estados Unidos –quienes hace unos días eran caracterizados allá de la siguiente forma y interrogados así: “They don’t make much money, they don’t have health benefits, and they don’t have job security. So why do adjuncts keep showing up to teach in college classrooms semester after semester, year after year?”– representa un fenómeno que acompaña casi inevitablemente a los procesos de masificación de la matrícula y de continua e ilimitada expansión de las funciones docentes.
Surge entonces una capa de docentes o profesores sin posiciones estables, frecuentem ete sin adscripción real ni a una disciplina ni a una institución, que proveen docencia a granel y son remunerados escasamente y tratados, la mayoría de las veces, sin mayor cuidado ni reconocimiento por su labor.
A continuación: el estado del debate sobre estos asuntos en la academia de los EE.UU. visto a través de dos artículos de revistas especializadas.
Seeking Tenure ‘Conversion’ Inside Higher Ed, October 28, 2009
In discussions about the use and abuse of adjunct faculty members, “conversion” is a controversial topic. Typically it refers to a decision by a college or university to convert some number of adjunct positions into a number (typically a smaller number) of tenure-track positions. The idea of conversion has been key to the reform proposals of national faculty groups. Some colleges actually have bucked the trends and converted slots to the tenure track in various ways.
The American Association of University Professors on Tuesday entered the conversion debate in a significant way with a new draft policy on the treatment of adjunct faculty members.
A cursory look at the draft might suggest that it is just another statement from a faculty group calling for better treatment of adjuncts and the creation of more tenure-track lines. But it actually reflects an attempt to shift how conversion might take place — by calling for a switch not of slots, but in the status of those currently working as adjuncts, whom the AAUP wants tenured (or converted).
Specifically, it calls for these faculty members to be considered for tenure based on their teaching contributions (assuming that like most adjuncts they focus on teaching), even if they are at research universities. Further, while the AAUP praises the tactic used by many academic unions and some individual colleges of providing adjuncts with more job security and better benefits and pay, the association goes on record as saying that anything short of tenure can’t be viewed as a substitute.
“As faculty hired into contingent positions seek and obtain greater employment security, often through collective bargaining, it is becoming clear that academic tenure and employment security are not reducible to each other,” the draft statement says. “A potentially crippling development in these arrangements is that many, while improving on the entirely insecure positions they replace, offer limited conceptions of academic citizenship and service, few protections for academic freedom, little opportunity for professional growth, and no professional peer scrutiny in hiring, evaluation, and promotion.”
Many parts of the AAUP policy are likely to find favor with adjuncts and other faculty members, many of whom fear the impact of the shift at many colleges to reliance on adjuncts as opposed to those on the tenure track.
But parts of the draft could be controversial. For instance, the theory behind the draft is that anyone who has been teaching year after year at a college should be qualified for a tenure track job. At the vast majority of colleges that are teaching oriented, the AAUP can argue that the adjuncts are in fact performing the duties of faculty members just as those down the hall (with tenure) do.
But the issue is more complicated at research universities — which led to some disagreements on the AAUP panel that drafted the report. Most research universities look for evidence of research potential when hiring for the tenure track, and most adjuncts — by virtue of spending all of their time teaching, and much of it rushing from campus to campus, with little if any support for attending conferences and other research activities — don’t tend to have the same publication records as others.
So universities that in fact employ the same adjuncts year after year to teach freshman composition might never seriously consider those individuals for a tenure-track line in English. How would conversion take place there?
The AAUP draft isn’t specific on the issue, because of the disagreements about what to do. One vision — outlined by Marc Bousquet, co-chair of the committee that wrote the draft and a professor of English at Santa Clara University — is to push for the creation of dual tenure track lines at research universities. Bousquet said that there is “a mistaken idea that tenure should be reserved for research-intensive” careers. “The foundation for academic freedom” that tenure provides is just as important for those teaching, so they should be offered tenure as teaching professors at research universities, he said. The bottom line, he said, is that anyone teaching at a college or university needs academic freedom that only comes with tenure.
While Bousquet acknowledged that there are concerns associated with having multiple tenure tracks at the same universities, he said that the most important thing was to provide full academic freedom protections to everyone, not just those who can get jobs based on their research. It would be problematic if research universities in such a system treated those on the research-oriented track better than those on the teaching-oriented track, he said, “but there are hierarchies now. They already exist.” The difference is that those on the bottom of today’s hierarchies don’t have any tenure rights.
While many on the committee endorsed Bousquet’s vision of dual tenure tracks to allow for the conversion of slots, one member who did not is Cary Nelson, national president of the AAUP. Nelson said that a “two-tiered class structure” would be “incredibly destructive” to morale among research university faculty, and that he can’t support such a measure. Nelson said that a majority of members of the committee that drafted the policy probably agree with Bousquet and that the issue would probably be addressed as the policy is refined.
At the same time, Nelson said that it is disingenuous for research universities to say that they can’t hire adjuncts to the tenure track because of standards. “How can they say that about adjuncts they employ for 25 years?” he asked. So Nelson said that he would propose that research universities hire their adjuncts into tenure-track lines “as a stopgap measure, to get justice for the contingent faculty members,” but then stop using contingent faculty members. So future hires would be on a common tenure track, with research and teaching obligations expected of all hires.
To permanently create separate tracks for teaching- and research-oriented faculty, he said, “would undermine the very nature of the research university.”
While the AAUP draft doesn’t explicitly endorse the two track system, it comes awfully close.
It says: “The best practice for institutions of all types is to convert the status of faculty serving contingently to eligible for tenure with only minor changes in job description. This means that faculty hired contingently with teaching as the major component of their workload will become tenure-eligible primarily on the basis of successful teaching. (Similarly, contingent faculty with research as the major component of their workload may become eligible for tenure primarily on the basis of successful research.) In the long run, however, a balance is desirable for most faculty. A tenure bid by a person in a teaching-intensive position is unlikely to be successful in the absence of campus citizenship and professional development, so even teaching-intensive tenure-eligible workloads should include service and appropriate forms of engagement in research or the scholarship of teaching.”
Beyond recommending this course of action as a means to “stabilize” the faculty, the draft statement outlines various college policies that it endorses. And it offers reasons why the current system of increased use of non-tenure-track faculty members hurts the academic freedom of all professors.
“In short, tenure was framed to unite the faculty within a system of common professional values, standards, and mutual responsibilities,” the draft says. “By 2007, however, almost 70 percent of faculty members were employed off the tenure track. Many institutions use contingent faculty appointments throughout their programs; some retain a tenurable faculty in their traditional or flagship programs while staffing others — such as branch campuses, online offerings, and overseas campuses — almost entirely with contingent faculty. Faculty serving contingently generally work at significantly lower wages, often without health coverage and other benefits, and in positions that do not incorporate all aspects of university life or the full range of faculty rights and responsibilities. The tenure track has not vanished, but it has ceased to be the norm for faculty.”
While experts on the academic workforce have only started to look at the document, many offered praise and others were critical (for varying reasons). The American Federation of Teachers offered support, calling the draft “a welcome contribution to the cause shared by the two organizations.” The AFT’s Faculty and College Excellence project has as its twin goals the improvement of adjunct working conditions and the creation of more tenure-track positions. While the AFT has said that adjuncts deserve fair consideration for those positions, it has not suggested that the the individuals should be moved to the tenure track in the same way being suggested by the AAUP.
Maria Maisto, president of the Board of Directors of New Faculty Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity, praised the AAUP draft, and she drew particular attention to the way the AAUP proposes to get adjuncts into the tenure track. “It’s not just a question of creating more positions, but you have to take advantage and reinvest in the resources you already have,” she said. “We’re really pleased with that.”
Maisto said that when colleges simply add tenure-track positions, adjuncts frequently lose jobs, unfairly. She noted, for example, that many colleges routinely hire those without Ph.D.’s to teach certain courses, but then — after adding a tenure-track slot for the courses — say that a doctorate is a requirement. “That’s the kind of scenario that the report recognizes,” she said. “We think the conversion of persons rather than positions is the way to go.”
But for others, that’s reason to question the AAUP draft. KC Johnson, a historian at Brooklyn College, spoke out against a conversion plan similar to what the AAUP is suggesting when the City University of New York faculty union sought one. (While the union didn’t win the conversion plan as it proposed, CUNY did create numerous new tenure-track positions.)
Johnson said he opposed the AAUP draft for the same reasons he opposed the idea proposed by the CUNY union. “The AAUP statement is deeply troubling,” he said. “Adjuncts are not hired through competitive, national searches, nor (with very, very rare exceptions) does an adjunct position contain any expectation of scholarly production. Converting them en masse to tenure-track faculty status would send a message to graduate students entering the field — much less to state legislators, donors, and alumni — that institutions no longer have any interest in ensuring that tenure-track positions result in the hire of the best candidate, drawn from a national pool to include consideration of the candidate’s scholarly publications.”
Keith Hoeller, co-founder of the Washington State Part-Time Faculty Association, said that he thinks the AAUP draft is based on a presumption that tenure is the only way to protect faculty rights. Since Hoeller — a long-term adjunct, who teaches at several colleges in the Seattle area — believes that he and many others will work without tenure, he thinks that’s the wrong approach. “I think the AAUP is trying to put their fingers in the holes of the dike, but they don’t have enough fingers,” he said.
Specifically, Hoeller said that the conversions envisioned by the AAUP draft will not take place at any kind of level to employ most adjuncts. “This would end up pitting adjunct against adjunct to compete for these new slots, and will leave the tenured faculty in control,” he said. If research universities created the new track that Bousquet suggested for teaching-oriented faculty members, “they would be a little above the other adjuncts, but not at the same level of the tenured faculty,” Hoeller said. “Adding more tracks is not going to solve the problem.”
If the AAUP and other faculty groups cannot bring tenure-track options to everyone, Hoeller said, they should look for new ways to protect academic freedom. “There has to be a whole new look at the system,” he said. “They need to think outside the box, but they can’t. I’m not surprised that an association that’s 90 percent tenured faculty would decide that the solution is more tenured faculty.”
— Scott Jaschik
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
Artículo –también de interés local– publicado en The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 octubre 2009.
Law-School Cost Is Pushed Up by Quest for Prestige, Not Accreditation, GAO Survey Finds
By Eric Kelderman
Critics have sometimes blamed the accreditation standards of the American Bar Association for driving up the cost of law school and making it more difficult for students of color to be admitted to those programs.
But a report released on Monday by the Government Accountability Office says that most law schools surveyed instead blamed competition for better rankings and a more hands-on approach to educating students for the increased price of a law degree. In addition, the federal watchdog agency reported that, over all, minorities are making up a larger share of law-school enrollments than in the past, although the percentage of African-American students in those programs is shrinking. The GAO attributed that decrease to lower undergraduate grade-point averages and scores on law-school admissions tests.
Law-school accreditation is technically voluntary but practically important: 19 states now require candidates to have a degree from an institution approved by the bar association to be eligible to take the bar examination. And a degree from an ABA-accredited institution makes a student eligible to take the bar exam in any state.
The costs of getting a law degree, however, have increased at a faster rate than the costs of comparable professional programs, says the report, “Higher Education: Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access.” In-state tuition and fees at public law schools averaged $14,461 in the 2007-8 academic year, 7.2 percent higher than the cost 12 years earlier. In comparison, the cost of a medical degree from a public institution increased 5.3 percent over the same period, to $22,048 annually.
Law-school costs for nonresidents and at private institutions also increased at a slower rate over that period, but now total about twice as much or more in dollars compared with residents’ costs at public institutions.
The reasons for the fast-rising costs are that law schools are providing courses and student-support programs that require more staff and faculty, the federal survey found. In addition, law schools spent more on faculty salaries and library resources, among other things, to boost their standing in the U.S. News & World Report annual rankings, law-school officials told the GAO.
Those findings stand in contrast to some criticisms that the accreditation standards for faculty and facilities are a major factor in the cost of law schools. “Officials from more than half of the ABA-accredited schools we spoke with stated they would meet or exceed some ABA accreditation standards even if they were not required,” the report says.
Law-school officials also cited recent declines in state appropriations as a reason for rising tuition, federal researchers reported.
Accreditation standards also were not widely blamed for the declining share of African-American law students, most of those surveyed said. Between the 1994-95 and 2006-7 academic years, the percentage of black students has shrunk from 7.5 percent of law school students to 6.5 percent, even as the number of blacks earning bachelor’s degrees has grown by two percentage points.
“Most law-school officials, students, and minority-student-group representatives we interviewed focused on issues such as differences in LSAT scores, academic preparation, and professional contacts, rather than accreditation standards, to explain minority access issues,” the report says.
But the report also noted that some officials blamed not only accreditation, but also rankings by U.S. News & World Report for lower or static enrollment rates of minorities: “Schools are reluctant to admit applicants with lower LSAT scores because the median LSAT score is a key factor in the U.S. News & World Report rankings.”
The study was a requirement of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, passed in 2008, and was meant to compare the costs and level of minority enrollment at law schools to similar professional-degree programs, including medical, dental, and veterinary colleges. Federal researchers surveyed officials at 22 institutions, including three that are not accredited by the ABA, and students in two law programs, one of which did not have the ABA’s stamp of approval.
Copyright 2009. All Rights reserved
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Circulan los resultados del Ranking de Universidades de la revista América Economía (Nº 42, octubre 2009), el primero de esta revista y con algunas interesantes inniovaciones respecto de rankings anteriores producidos en Chile, como se desprende la metodología que sirvió para su elaboración (ver más abajo).
Ver resultados del ranking de instituciones universitarias de América Economía 2009 y los rankings para diversas carreras universitarias aquí19,1 MB
Las 10 primeras universidades de ac uerdo a su índice dalidad en este Ranking son:
U de Chile
U de Concepción
U Santiago de Chile
U Técnica Federico Santa María
U Austral de Chile
U Diego Portales
U Adolfo Ibáñez
Reportaje televisivo (Tele 13) sobre el costo de los estudios de educación superior en Chile.
Ver el reportaje aquí.
Política universitaria: una encrucijada estratégica, 18 octubre 2009
Costo de la educación superior: ¿quién paga?, 27 septiembre 2009
Presentaciones y textos de las ponencias hechas durante el Primer Congreso de Investigación en Educación Superior, realizado en Santiago el día 20 de octubre de 2009.
Educación Superior y Políticas Públicas
Giselle González, Políticas públicas en educación superior: estructura de los sistemas, financiamiento público, regulaciones estatales, aseguramiento de la calidad. Ponencia completa // Presentación
Daniel López, Patrones funcionales en las organizaciones internacionales de cooperación universitaria de América Latina y el Caribe Ponencia completa // Presentación
Carlos Romero, Relación entre la evaluación / acreditación de programas e instituciones Ponencia completa // Presentación
Sebastián Donoso, Economía Política del Financiamiento de los Estudios Universitarios: Análisis del caso chileno Ponencia completa // Presentación
Soledad Álvarez, La acreditación de carreras de Medicina en Argentina sometida a estudio Ponencia completa // Presentación
Educación Superior: Gestión y desarrollo
Julieta Claverie, La carrera docente en Universidades Nacionales de la Argentina: Posibilidades de acceso, permanencia y promoción en la profesión académica Ponencia completa // Presentación
María Rosa Lissi, Creencias y actitudes de docentes y estudiantes sin discapacidad respecto a la inclusión de estudiantes con discapacidad en la educación superior Ponencia completa // Presentación
Rodrigo Fernández-Donoso, Criterios para la Evaluación de Planes Estratégicos de Unidades Académicas en una Universidad Compleja Ponencia completa // Presentación
María Luisa Díaz, Empleabilidad de los Trabajadores Sociales y los nuevos desafíos para la formación profesional: El caso de la carrera de Trabajo Social de la Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez Ponencia completa // Presentación
Gonzalo Zapata, Mercado, Accountability e Información Pública en Educación Superior Ponencia completa // Presentación
Escuela de Psicología, Facultad de Filosofía y Educación, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
Noviembre 26 y 27, Viña del Mar
Jueves 26 Noviembre
8:30 – 9:00 Inscripción
9:00 – 9:15 Bienvenida
Dr. Nelson Vásquez Lara
Decano de la Facultad de Filosofía y Educación
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
Dra. Carmen Montecinos Sanhueza
Profesora de la Escuela de Psicología
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
9:15 – 9:30 “El Programa Inicia y los desafíos de la formación práctica en profesores de formación inicial”
Dra. Erika Castillo Barrientos
Directora del Programa Inicia. Ministerio de Educación
9:30 – 10:30 Ponencia: “Estudio de la formación práctica en 21 carreras de pedagogia”.
Carmen Montecinos Sanhueza, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
Inés Contreras Valenzuela, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Claudio Nuñez Vega, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Sylvia Rittershaussen Klaunig, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
María Cristina Solis Zañartu, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Horacio Walker Larraín, Universidad Diego Portales
10:30 – 11:00 Café
11:00 – 13:00
Panel. Utilización de los resultados de la investigación “El impacto de la formación práctica en el proceso de aprender a enseñar desde las diez universidades participantes”.
1. Qué resultados han sido más relevantes para el análisis de su formación práctica
2. Una propuesta de mejoramiento que surge de este análisis.
Universidad de Playa Ancha
Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de al Educación
Universidad Andrés Bello
Universidad Diego Portales
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Universidad de Concepción
Universidad del Bío Bío
Universidad de la Santísima Concepción
Universidad Católica de Temuco
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
13:00 – 14:30 Presentación del libro Las Muestras de Desempeño Docente: Un instrumento para evaluar la calidad de la enseñanza y su impacto en el aprendizaje. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
15:00 – 16:30 Ponencia La Práctica Docente como Currículo para la Formación Docente en los Establecimientos Educacionales
Dra. Marilyn Cochran Smith, Boston College, EEUU.
16:30 – 18:00 Ponencia Vinculación Universidad-Comunidad- Sistema Escolar para la Formación Inicial Docente
Dra. Christine Sleeter, California State University-Monterey Bay, EEUU
18:00 Café cierre del día
Viernes 27 de Noviembre
9:00 – 10:30 Ponencia De la Enseñanza a la Mentoría: Desarrollando Conocimientos para pasar de la enseñanza de niños y niñas a la mentoría de los estudiantes de pedagogía en la práctica profesional
Dra. Lily Orland-Barak , Universidad de Haifa, Israel
10:30 – 11:00 Café
11:00 – 12:30 Talleres
A. Sobre el currículo para la formación práctica facilitado por la Dra. Cochran-Smith
B. Sobre la vinculación sistema escolar facilitado por la Dra. Sleeter
C. Sobre la formación profesores mentores facilitado por la Dra. Orland-Barak
12:45 – 13:30 Plenario de Cierre
Dr. Avalos, Dra. Cochran-Smith, Dra. Orland-Barak y Dra. Sleeter
Moderador Dr. Claudio Nuñez
Jueves 26 Aula Media de la Facultad de Filosofía y Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Campus Sausalito. Avenida el Bosque 1290, Viña del Mar
Viernes 27 Aula Media de la Facultad de Filosofía y Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Campus Sausalito. Avenida el Bosque 1290, Viña del Mar
Teléfono: Nelson Vasquez L. 032- 2274398/ 2274353
Fax: 032- 2274359
Correo electrónico: email@example.com
Teléfono: Silvia Rittershaussen K. 02- 6865399
Correo electrónico: firstname.lastname@example.org
Inscripción y participación Gratuita
Costo de la certificación: Académicos : 20.000 pesos
Estudiantes: 5.000 pesos
Patrocinado por: Vice Rectoría de Asuntos Docentes y Estudiantiles, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Facultad de Filosofía y Educación-PUCV, Fundación Andes, Centro de Investigación Avanzada en Educación (CIAE) y la Facultad de Educación, Universidad Diego Portales