Ranking Support for the Strategic Development of Leading Universities: Lessons from the University Revolution in China
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The article uses the example of China to justify that the use of ranking tools contributes to the effective strategic development of leading universities. Rating diagnostics of the effectiveness of relevant strategic measures makes it possible to identify and demonstrate targeted achievements. To characterize the unprecedentedly rapid and sustainable progress of China's top universities, a comparison is made with the avant-garde higher education of the United States, the world's university leader. The study used data from the objective, specially created in China, Shanghai Ranking for the period of unchanged methodology of its general version (ARWU) during 2004-2025, as well as the sectoral version (GRAS) 2017-2024. Thanks to the ranking assessment, it was found that university development in China occurs simultaneously in qualitative and quantitative dimensions. In terms of the number of universities in ARWU, mainland China (including universities in the special zones of Hong Kong and Macau) will surpass the United States starting in 2022. In terms of the number of world-class universities (in the top 500 group), in 2025 China (108) will be close to the US (111), although in 2004 it was 13 times behind. Over the past six years, China has expanded by 4 institutions into the group of extra-class universities (the top 30 group), which is in an extremely steep section of the ranking, displacing the only university in Japan from this cohort and overtaking the university in Switzerland. Thus, in terms of the best university achievement (18th place), China has moved from 25th position in the list of countries in 2004 to 4th now (more than a 6-fold improvement), trailing in the top 30 group only the USA (19 institutions), the United Kingdom (also 4 institutions) and France (1 institution) and ahead of the aforementioned Switzerland (1 institution) and Canada (1 institution). In terms of the sectoral version, there was an overall 2.5-fold improvement in university excellence/competitiveness over the seven-year period, with Chinese universities not deteriorating in any of the 55 academic subjects. In this version, the number of first places increased from 8 to 20 (36%), or 2.5 times. The ranking control confirmed the feasibility of creating and implementing programs of consistent state support in China for leading universities, especially the leading C9 League consisting of nine advanced institutions, four of which have now acquired extra-class status. Also, starting in 2015, a new strategic program has been implemented to create so-called dual world-class universities for the period until 2050, which provides for general and sectoral ranking monitoring and currently includes 147 selected institutions, which account for 4.9% of the total number of Chinese universities. The lessons from China for Ukraine primarily consist of: 1) the urgent introduction of a strategy for the development of leading universities with mandatory objective ranking of top universities into domestic policy and practice; 2) the allocation of a leadership group from among the best institutions and the provision of powerful and prolonged state support to them for the purpose of their synergistic group breakthrough to the heights of excellence (real provision of the priority of the strategic development of leading universities); 3) the expediency of strengthening trust in leading universities on the basis of trust in a reliable ranking and, on this basis, significantly expanding their institutional autonomy and resource provision as promising objects of state investment; 4) the implementation of a ranking-based strategy for the consolidation of the university network. This is important for increasing the competitiveness of the Ukrainian economy, strengthening defense capabilities and security, and the post-war reconstruction of the country on a highly professional and high-tech basis in a globalized competitive world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».