- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
The reputation data used by THE in the 2016 world rankings, for which the world is breathlessly waiting, is that which was used in their reputation rankings released last May and collected between January and March. Therefore, the distribution of responses from disciplinary groups this year was 9% for the arts and humanities and 15% for social sciences and 13% for business (28% for the last two combined). In 2015 it was 16% for the arts and humanities and 19% for the social sciences (which then included business). Since UK universities are relatively strong in the humanities and Asian universities relatively strong in business studies the result of this was a shift in the reputation rankings away from the UK and towards Asian universities. Oxford fell from 3rd (score 80.4) to 5th (score 69.1) in the reputation rankings and Bristol and Durham dropped out of the top 100 while Tsinghua University rose from 26th place to 18th, Peking University from 32nd to 21st and Seoul National University from 51-60 to 45th. In the forthcoming world rankings British universities (although threatened by Brexit) ought to do better because of the inclusion of books in the publications and citations indicators and certain Asian universities, but by no means all, may do better because their citations for mega-projects will be partially restored. Notice that THE have also said that this year they will combine the reputation scores for 2015 and 2016, something that is unprecedented. Presumably this will reduce the fall of UK universities in the reputation survey. Combined with the inclusion of books in the database, this may mean that UK universities may not fall this year and may even go up a bit (ATBB).
The reputation data used by THE in the 2016 world rankings, for which the world is breathlessly waiting, is that which was used in their reputation rankings released last May and collected between January and March. Therefore, the distribution of responses from disciplinary groups this year was 9% for the arts and humanities and 15% for social sciences and 13% for business (28% for the last two combined). In 2015 it was 16% for the arts and humanities and 19% for the social sciences (which then included business). Since UK universities are relatively strong in the humanities and Asian universities relatively strong in business studies the result of this was a shift in the reputation rankings away from the UK and towards Asian universities. Oxford fell from 3rd (score 80.4) to 5th (score 69.1) in the reputation rankings and Bristol and Durham dropped out of the top 100 while Tsinghua University rose from 26th place to 18th, Peking University from 32nd to 21st and Seoul National University from 51-60 to 45th. In the forthcoming world rankings British universities (although threatened by Brexit) ought to do better because of the inclusion of books in the publications and citations indicators and certain Asian universities, but by no means all, may do better because their citations for mega-projects will be partially restored. Notice that THE have also said that this year they will combine the reputation scores for 2015 and 2016, something that is unprecedented. Presumably this will reduce the fall of UK universities in the reputation survey. Combined with the inclusion of books in the database, this may mean that UK universities may not fall this year and may even go up a bit (ATBB).
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
Here are my predictions for the THE rankings on the 21st and academic summit on the 26th -28th.
Donald Trump will not be invited to give a keynote address.
The decline of US public universities will be blamed on government spending cuts.
British universities will be found to be in mortal danger from Brexit and visa controls.
Phil Baty will give a rankings "masterclass" but will have to apologise to feminists because he couldn't think of anything else to call it.
The words 'prestige' and 'prestigious' will be used more times than in the novel by Christopher Priest or the film by Christopher Nolan
The counting of books will help British universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, but they will still be threatened by Brexit.
The partial reinclusion of citations of papers with 1,000+ authors, mainly in physics, will lead to a modest recovery of some universities in France, Korea, Japan and Turkey. The rise of Asia will resume.
Since the host city or university of THE summits somehow manages to get in the top ten, Berkeley will recover from last year's fall to 13th place.
Last year the percentage of survey responses from the arts and humanities fell to 9% from 16%. I suspect that this year the fall might be reversed and that the reason THE are combining the reputation survey results for this year and 2015 is to reduce the swing back to UK universities, which are suffering because of visa controls and Brexit.
At least one of the above will be wrong..
Here are my predictions for the THE rankings on the 21st and academic summit on the 26th -28th.
Donald Trump will not be invited to give a keynote address.
The decline of US public universities will be blamed on government spending cuts.
British universities will be found to be in mortal danger from Brexit and visa controls.
Phil Baty will give a rankings "masterclass" but will have to apologise to feminists because he couldn't think of anything else to call it.
The words 'prestige' and 'prestigious' will be used more times than in the novel by Christopher Priest or the film by Christopher Nolan
The counting of books will help British universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, but they will still be threatened by Brexit.
The partial reinclusion of citations of papers with 1,000+ authors, mainly in physics, will lead to a modest recovery of some universities in France, Korea, Japan and Turkey. The rise of Asia will resume.
Since the host city or university of THE summits somehow manages to get in the top ten, Berkeley will recover from last year's fall to 13th place.
Last year the percentage of survey responses from the arts and humanities fell to 9% from 16%. I suspect that this year the fall might be reversed and that the reason THE are combining the reputation survey results for this year and 2015 is to reduce the swing back to UK universities, which are suffering because of visa controls and Brexit.
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
The world, having recovered from the shocks of the Shanghai, QS and RUR rankings, now waits for the THE world rankings, especially the research impact indicator measured by field normalised citations.
It might be helpful to show the top 5 universities for this criterion since 2010-11.
2010-11 1. Caltech 2. MIT 3. Princeton 4. Alexandria University 5. UC Santa Cruz
2011-12 1. Princeton 2. MIT 3. Caltech 4. UC Santa Barbara 5. Rice University
2012-13 1. Rice University 2. National Research Nuclear University MePhI 3. MIT 4. UC Santa Cruz 5. Princeton
2013-14 1. MIT 2. Tokyo Metropolitan University 3. Rice University 4. UC Santa Cruz 5. Caltech
2014-15 1. MIT 2. UC Santa Cruz 3. Tokyo Metropolitan University 4. Rice University 5. Caltech
2015-16 1. St George's, University of London 2. Stanford University 3. UC Santa Cruz 4 Caltech 5. Harvard
Notice that no university has been in the top five for citations in every year.
Last year THE introduced some changes to this indicator, one of which was to exclude papers with more than 1000 authors from the citation count. This, along with a dilution of the regional modification that gave a bonus to universities in low scoring countries, had a devastating effect on some universities in France, Korea, Japan, Morocco, Chile and Turkey.
The citations indicator has always been an embarrassment to THE, throwing up a number of improbable front runners aka previously undiscovered pockets of excellence. Last year they introduced some reforms but not enough. It would be a good idea for THE to get rid of the regional modification altogether, to introduce full scale fractional counting, to reduce the weighting assigned to citations, to exclude self-citations and secondary affiliations and to include more than one measure of research impact and research quality.
Excluding the papers, mainly in particle physics, with 1,000 plus "authors" meant avoiding the bizarre situation where a contributor to a single paper with 2,000 authors and 2,000 citations would get the same credit as 1,000 authors writing a thousand papers each of which had been cited twice.
But this measure also meant that some of the most significant scientific activity of the century would not be counted in the rankings. The best solution would have been fractional counting, distributing the citations among all of the institutions or contributors, and in fact THE did this for their pilot African rankings at the University of Johannesburg.
Now, THE have announced a change for this year's rankings. According to their data chief Duncan Ross.
" Last year we excluded a small number of papers with more than 1,000 authors. I won’t rehearse the arguments for their exclusion here, but we said at the time that we would try to identify a way to re-include them that would prevent the distorting effect that they had on the overall metric for a few universities.
This year they are included – although they will be treated differently from other papers. Every university with researchers who author a kilo-author paper will receive at least 5 per cent credit for the paper – rising proportionally to the number of authors that the university has.
This is the first time that we have used a proportional measure in our citations score, and we will be monitoring it with interest.
We’re also pleased that this year the calculation of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings has been subject to independent audit by professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). "
This could have perverse consequences. If an institution has one contributor to a 1,000 author paper with 2,000 citations then that author will get 2,000 citations for the university. But if there are 1001 authors then he or she would get only 50 citations.
It is possible that we will see a cluster of papers with 998, 999, 1000 authors as institutions remove their researchers from the author lists or project leaders start capping the number of contributors.
This could be a way of finding out if research intensive universities really do care about the THE rankings.
Similarly, QS now excludes papers with more than ten contributing institutions. If researchers are concerned about the QS rankings they will ensure that the number of institutions does not go above ten. Let's see if we start getting large numbers of papers with ten institutions but none or few with 11, 12 13 etc.
I am wondering why THE would bother introducing this relatively small change. Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a lot of small changes all at once and get the resulting volatility over and done with?
I wonder if this has something to do with the THE world academic summit being held at Berkeley on 26-28 September in cooperation with UC Berkeley. Last year Berkeley fell from 8th to 13th in the THE world rankings. Since it is a contributor to several multi-contributor papers it is possible that the partial re-inclusion of hyper-papers will help the university back into the top ten.
The world, having recovered from the shocks of the Shanghai, QS and RUR rankings, now waits for the THE world rankings, especially the research impact indicator measured by field normalised citations.
It might be helpful to show the top 5 universities for this criterion since 2010-11.
2010-11 1. Caltech 2. MIT 3. Princeton 4. Alexandria University 5. UC Santa Cruz
2011-12 1. Princeton 2. MIT 3. Caltech 4. UC Santa Barbara 5. Rice University
2012-13 1. Rice University 2. National Research Nuclear University MePhI 3. MIT 4. UC Santa Cruz 5. Princeton
2013-14 1. MIT 2. Tokyo Metropolitan University 3. Rice University 4. UC Santa Cruz 5. Caltech
2014-15 1. MIT 2. UC Santa Cruz 3. Tokyo Metropolitan University 4. Rice University 5. Caltech
2015-16 1. St George's, University of London 2. Stanford University 3. UC Santa Cruz 4 Caltech 5. Harvard
Notice that no university has been in the top five for citations in every year.
Last year THE introduced some changes to this indicator, one of which was to exclude papers with more than 1000 authors from the citation count. This, along with a dilution of the regional modification that gave a bonus to universities in low scoring countries, had a devastating effect on some universities in France, Korea, Japan, Morocco, Chile and Turkey.
The citations indicator has always been an embarrassment to THE, throwing up a number of improbable front runners aka previously undiscovered pockets of excellence. Last year they introduced some reforms but not enough. It would be a good idea for THE to get rid of the regional modification altogether, to introduce full scale fractional counting, to reduce the weighting assigned to citations, to exclude self-citations and secondary affiliations and to include more than one measure of research impact and research quality.
Excluding the papers, mainly in particle physics, with 1,000 plus "authors" meant avoiding the bizarre situation where a contributor to a single paper with 2,000 authors and 2,000 citations would get the same credit as 1,000 authors writing a thousand papers each of which had been cited twice.
But this measure also meant that some of the most significant scientific activity of the century would not be counted in the rankings. The best solution would have been fractional counting, distributing the citations among all of the institutions or contributors, and in fact THE did this for their pilot African rankings at the University of Johannesburg.
Now, THE have announced a change for this year's rankings. According to their data chief Duncan Ross.
" Last year we excluded a small number of papers with more than 1,000 authors. I won’t rehearse the arguments for their exclusion here, but we said at the time that we would try to identify a way to re-include them that would prevent the distorting effect that they had on the overall metric for a few universities.
This year they are included – although they will be treated differently from other papers. Every university with researchers who author a kilo-author paper will receive at least 5 per cent credit for the paper – rising proportionally to the number of authors that the university has.
This is the first time that we have used a proportional measure in our citations score, and we will be monitoring it with interest.
We’re also pleased that this year the calculation of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings has been subject to independent audit by professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). "
This could have perverse consequences. If an institution has one contributor to a 1,000 author paper with 2,000 citations then that author will get 2,000 citations for the university. But if there are 1001 authors then he or she would get only 50 citations.
It is possible that we will see a cluster of papers with 998, 999, 1000 authors as institutions remove their researchers from the author lists or project leaders start capping the number of contributors.
This could be a way of finding out if research intensive universities really do care about the THE rankings.
Similarly, QS now excludes papers with more than ten contributing institutions. If researchers are concerned about the QS rankings they will ensure that the number of institutions does not go above ten. Let's see if we start getting large numbers of papers with ten institutions but none or few with 11, 12 13 etc.
I am wondering why THE would bother introducing this relatively small change. Wouldn't it make more sense to introduce a lot of small changes all at once and get the resulting volatility over and done with?
I wonder if this has something to do with the THE world academic summit being held at Berkeley on 26-28 September in cooperation with UC Berkeley. Last year Berkeley fell from 8th to 13th in the THE world rankings. Since it is a contributor to several multi-contributor papers it is possible that the partial re-inclusion of hyper-papers will help the university back into the top ten.
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
John Field, an expert on lifelong learning and a small Scotswoman, commentson the growing Brexit hysteria blowing through academia.
Professor Field quotes the Vice Chancellor of the University of York:
"York, along with many other British universities, appears to have fallen in the QS league table because of concerns about the impact of Brexit; specifically, this has been attributed to worries about future access to research funding and whether we will be able to recruit excellent academic staff and students from all over the world."
John Field, an expert on lifelong learning and a small Scotswoman, commentson the growing Brexit hysteria blowing through academia.
Professor Field quotes the Vice Chancellor of the University of York:
"York, along with many other British universities, appears to have fallen in the QS league table because of concerns about the impact of Brexit; specifically, this has been attributed to worries about future access to research funding and whether we will be able to recruit excellent academic staff and students from all over the world."
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
The western chattering and scribbling classes sometimes like to reflect on their superiority to the pre-scientific attitudes of the local peasantry, astrology, nationalism and religion and things like that. But it seems that the credentialled elite of Britain are now in the grip of a great fear of an all pervading spirit called Brexit whose malign power is unlimited in time and space.
Thus the Independent tells us that university rankings (QS in this case) show that "post Brexit uncertainty and long-term funding issues" have hit UK higher education.
The Guardian implies that Brexit has something to do with the decline of British universities in the rankings without actually saying so.
"British universities have taken a tumble in the latest international rankings, as concern persists about the potential impact of Brexit on the country’s higher education sector. "
Many British universities have fallen in the QS rankings this year but the idea that Brexit has anything to do with it is nonsense. The Brexit vote was on June 23rd, well after QS's deadlines for submitting respondents for the reputation surveys and updating institutional data. The citations indicator refers to the period 2011-2015.
The belief that rankings reveal the dire effects of funding cuts and immigration restrictions is somewhat more plausible but fundamentally untenable.
Certainly, British universities have taken some blows in the QS rankings this year. Of the 18 universities in the top 100 in 2015 two are in the same place this year, two have risen and 14 have fallen. This is associated with a general decline in performance in the academic reputation indicator which accounts for 40% of the overall score.
Of those 18 universities three, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, hold the same rank in the academic reputation indicator, one, King's College London, has risen and fourteen are down.
The idea that the reputation of British universities is suffering because survey respondents have heard that the UK government is cutting spending or tightening up on visa regulations is based on some unlikely assumptions about how researchers go about completing reputation surveys.
Do researchers really base their assessment of research quality on media headlines, often inaccurate and alarmist? Or do they make an honest assessment of performance over the last few years or even decades? Or do they vote according to their self interest, nominating their almae matres or former employers?
I suspect that the decline of British universities in the QS reputation indicator has little to do with perceptions about British universities and a lot more to do with growing sophistication about and interest in rankings in the rest of the world, particularly in East Asia and maybe parts of continental Europe.
The western chattering and scribbling classes sometimes like to reflect on their superiority to the pre-scientific attitudes of the local peasantry, astrology, nationalism and religion and things like that. But it seems that the credentialled elite of Britain are now in the grip of a great fear of an all pervading spirit called Brexit whose malign power is unlimited in time and space.
Thus the Independent tells us that university rankings (QS in this case) show that "post Brexit uncertainty and long-term funding issues" have hit UK higher education.
The Guardian implies that Brexit has something to do with the decline of British universities in the rankings without actually saying so.
"British universities have taken a tumble in the latest international rankings, as concern persists about the potential impact of Brexit on the country’s higher education sector. "
Many British universities have fallen in the QS rankings this year but the idea that Brexit has anything to do with it is nonsense. The Brexit vote was on June 23rd, well after QS's deadlines for submitting respondents for the reputation surveys and updating institutional data. The citations indicator refers to the period 2011-2015.
The belief that rankings reveal the dire effects of funding cuts and immigration restrictions is somewhat more plausible but fundamentally untenable.
Certainly, British universities have taken some blows in the QS rankings this year. Of the 18 universities in the top 100 in 2015 two are in the same place this year, two have risen and 14 have fallen. This is associated with a general decline in performance in the academic reputation indicator which accounts for 40% of the overall score.
Of those 18 universities three, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, hold the same rank in the academic reputation indicator, one, King's College London, has risen and fourteen are down.
The idea that the reputation of British universities is suffering because survey respondents have heard that the UK government is cutting spending or tightening up on visa regulations is based on some unlikely assumptions about how researchers go about completing reputation surveys.
Do researchers really base their assessment of research quality on media headlines, often inaccurate and alarmist? Or do they make an honest assessment of performance over the last few years or even decades? Or do they vote according to their self interest, nominating their almae matres or former employers?
I suspect that the decline of British universities in the QS reputation indicator has little to do with perceptions about British universities and a lot more to do with growing sophistication about and interest in rankings in the rest of the world, particularly in East Asia and maybe parts of continental Europe.
- Hallo sahabat Berita Hari ini, Pada Artikel yang anda baca kali ini dengan judul
, kami telah mempersiapkan artikel ini dengan baik untuk anda baca dan ambil informasi didalamnya. mudah-mudahan isi postingan yang kami tulis ini dapat anda pahami. baiklah, selamat membaca.
Trigger warning If you're triggered by just about anything, don't read this. Those who dislike inherited privilege will be entertained by this account of the last days of Charles II. it is from a post by Gregory Cochran at the blog, West Hunter. It seems that there has been a little bit of progress over the centuries. The future Charles III has a thing about homeopathy, expensive pseudoscientific rubbish but at least it's harmless. I can't help wondering whether the malign spirit of pseudoscience has now taken refuge in university faculties of social science with their endless crises of irreproducible research. "Back in the good old days, Charles II, age 53, had a fit one Sunday evening, while fondling two of his mistresses. Monday they bled him (cupping and scarifying) of eight ounces of blood. Followed by an antimony emetic, vitriol in peony water, purgative pills, and a clyster. Followed by another clyster after two hours. Then syrup of blackthorn, more antimony, and rock salt. Next, more laxatives, white hellebore root up the nostrils. Powdered cowslip flowers. More purgatives. Then Spanish Fly. They shaved his head and stuck blistering plasters all over it, plastered the soles of his feet with tar and pigeon-dung, then said good-night.
Tuesday. ten more ounces of blood, a gargle of elm in syrup of mallow, and a julep of black cherry, peony, crushed pearls, and white sugar candy.
Wednesday. Things looked good:: only senna pods infused in spring water, along with white wine and nutmeg.
Thursday. More fits. They gave him a spirituous draft made from the skull of a man who had died a violent death. Peruvian bark, repeatedly, interspersed with more human skull. Didn’t work.
Friday. The king was worse. He tells them not to let poor Nelly starve. They try the Oriental Bezoar Stone, and more bleeding. Dies at noon."
Trigger warning If you're triggered by just about anything, don't read this. Those who dislike inherited privilege will be entertained by this account of the last days of Charles II. it is from a post by Gregory Cochran at the blog, West Hunter. It seems that there has been a little bit of progress over the centuries. The future Charles III has a thing about homeopathy, expensive pseudoscientific rubbish but at least it's harmless. I can't help wondering whether the malign spirit of pseudoscience has now taken refuge in university faculties of social science with their endless crises of irreproducible research. "Back in the good old days, Charles II, age 53, had a fit one Sunday evening, while fondling two of his mistresses. Monday they bled him (cupping and scarifying) of eight ounces of blood. Followed by an antimony emetic, vitriol in peony water, purgative pills, and a clyster. Followed by another clyster after two hours. Then syrup of blackthorn, more antimony, and rock salt. Next, more laxatives, white hellebore root up the nostrils. Powdered cowslip flowers. More purgatives. Then Spanish Fly. They shaved his head and stuck blistering plasters all over it, plastered the soles of his feet with tar and pigeon-dung, then said good-night.
Tuesday. ten more ounces of blood, a gargle of elm in syrup of mallow, and a julep of black cherry, peony, crushed pearls, and white sugar candy.
Wednesday. Things looked good:: only senna pods infused in spring water, along with white wine and nutmeg.
Thursday. More fits. They gave him a spirituous draft made from the skull of a man who had died a violent death. Peruvian bark, repeatedly, interspersed with more human skull. Didn’t work.
Friday. The king was worse. He tells them not to let poor Nelly starve. They try the Oriental Bezoar Stone, and more bleeding. Dies at noon."
