Performance indicators and rankings in higher education

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

In times of austerity sectors which are publicly funded are inevitably under pressure to use their resources more efficiently. As a consequence, there is a tendency for the distribution of funds to be linked to past performance. During the 1980s, a period of funding cuts in the UK, the higher education funding bodies strove to develop performance indicators the purpose of which was to aid in the distribution of funds. In the early years, these indicators were simply ratios of one output to one input such as the proportion of students with ‘good’ degrees or the cost per student. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are multi-product firms, however, with complex production processes, and simple ratios cannot possibly capture the true picture of performance. In the ensuing thirty years, as techniques have developed to capture performance in a multi-output multi-input production framework, indicators have become more sophisticated. There is still a tendency, though, to stick with the more simple (easy to interpret) indicators as demonstrated by the interest in media rankings of universities. But the danger of these simple indicators is that they are open to manipulation and gaming. This paper examines and compares media rankings and performance indicators and proposes and evaluates a methodology which both captures performance and reduces the likelihood of gaming behaviour.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationValuing Higher Education
Subtitle of host publicationAn Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams
EditorsRonald Barnett, Paul Temple, Peter Scott
PublisherUCL Institute of Education Press
Pages77-105
Number of pages29
ISBN (Print)9781782771746
Publication statusPublished - 7 Sep 2016

Fingerprint

ranking
performance
education
funding
production process
manipulation
student
firm
university
methodology
costs
resources

Cite this

Johnes, J. (2016). Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. In R. Barnett, P. Temple, & P. Scott (Eds.), Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams (pp. 77-105). UCL Institute of Education Press.
Johnes, Jill. / Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. editor / Ronald Barnett ; Paul Temple ; Peter Scott. UCL Institute of Education Press, 2016. pp. 77-105
@inbook{c950521d3e7046b1b14205a233d239ff,
title = "Performance indicators and rankings in higher education",
abstract = "In times of austerity sectors which are publicly funded are inevitably under pressure to use their resources more efficiently. As a consequence, there is a tendency for the distribution of funds to be linked to past performance. During the 1980s, a period of funding cuts in the UK, the higher education funding bodies strove to develop performance indicators the purpose of which was to aid in the distribution of funds. In the early years, these indicators were simply ratios of one output to one input such as the proportion of students with ‘good’ degrees or the cost per student. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are multi-product firms, however, with complex production processes, and simple ratios cannot possibly capture the true picture of performance. In the ensuing thirty years, as techniques have developed to capture performance in a multi-output multi-input production framework, indicators have become more sophisticated. There is still a tendency, though, to stick with the more simple (easy to interpret) indicators as demonstrated by the interest in media rankings of universities. But the danger of these simple indicators is that they are open to manipulation and gaming. This paper examines and compares media rankings and performance indicators and proposes and evaluates a methodology which both captures performance and reduces the likelihood of gaming behaviour.",
author = "Jill Johnes",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "7",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781782771746",
pages = "77--105",
editor = "Ronald Barnett and Paul Temple and Peter Scott",
booktitle = "Valuing Higher Education",
publisher = "UCL Institute of Education Press",

}

Johnes, J 2016, Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. in R Barnett, P Temple & P Scott (eds), Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. UCL Institute of Education Press, pp. 77-105.

Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. / Johnes, Jill.

Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. ed. / Ronald Barnett; Paul Temple; Peter Scott. UCL Institute of Education Press, 2016. p. 77-105.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Performance indicators and rankings in higher education

AU - Johnes, Jill

PY - 2016/9/7

Y1 - 2016/9/7

N2 - In times of austerity sectors which are publicly funded are inevitably under pressure to use their resources more efficiently. As a consequence, there is a tendency for the distribution of funds to be linked to past performance. During the 1980s, a period of funding cuts in the UK, the higher education funding bodies strove to develop performance indicators the purpose of which was to aid in the distribution of funds. In the early years, these indicators were simply ratios of one output to one input such as the proportion of students with ‘good’ degrees or the cost per student. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are multi-product firms, however, with complex production processes, and simple ratios cannot possibly capture the true picture of performance. In the ensuing thirty years, as techniques have developed to capture performance in a multi-output multi-input production framework, indicators have become more sophisticated. There is still a tendency, though, to stick with the more simple (easy to interpret) indicators as demonstrated by the interest in media rankings of universities. But the danger of these simple indicators is that they are open to manipulation and gaming. This paper examines and compares media rankings and performance indicators and proposes and evaluates a methodology which both captures performance and reduces the likelihood of gaming behaviour.

AB - In times of austerity sectors which are publicly funded are inevitably under pressure to use their resources more efficiently. As a consequence, there is a tendency for the distribution of funds to be linked to past performance. During the 1980s, a period of funding cuts in the UK, the higher education funding bodies strove to develop performance indicators the purpose of which was to aid in the distribution of funds. In the early years, these indicators were simply ratios of one output to one input such as the proportion of students with ‘good’ degrees or the cost per student. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are multi-product firms, however, with complex production processes, and simple ratios cannot possibly capture the true picture of performance. In the ensuing thirty years, as techniques have developed to capture performance in a multi-output multi-input production framework, indicators have become more sophisticated. There is still a tendency, though, to stick with the more simple (easy to interpret) indicators as demonstrated by the interest in media rankings of universities. But the danger of these simple indicators is that they are open to manipulation and gaming. This paper examines and compares media rankings and performance indicators and proposes and evaluates a methodology which both captures performance and reduces the likelihood of gaming behaviour.

UR - https://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/books/higher-education-and-lifelong-learning/valuing-higher-education/

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781782771746

SP - 77

EP - 105

BT - Valuing Higher Education

A2 - Barnett, Ronald

A2 - Temple, Paul

A2 - Scott, Peter

PB - UCL Institute of Education Press

ER -

Johnes J. Performance indicators and rankings in higher education. In Barnett R, Temple P, Scott P, editors, Valuing Higher Education: An Appreciation of the Work of Gareth Williams. UCL Institute of Education Press. 2016. p. 77-105