Suggested Policies for Accepting PhD Students at the University of Jordan to Align Its Educational Outcomes with the Needs of the Labor Market and to Improve Its Position in the World Universities Rankings According to the Experience of Canadian Universit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to develop proposed policies for the acceptance of doctoral students at the University of Jordan to align its educational outcomes with the needs of the labor market and to improve their positions in the World Universities Rankings according to the experience of Canadian universities for the academic year 2019/2020, To accomplish the objectives of the study, the researchers used the methodology, the qualitative, quantitative, evolutionary survey research and Synthetic-Analytic Approach. A study tool has been developed in the light of the methodology, two study tools were used, the questionnaire and the interview with a sample of (20) academic leaders, and its validity and reliability were assured by scientific methods. - The fairness of the procedures followed by the Faculty of Graduate Studies in attracting doctoral students, so that the criteria and conditions for admission are applied based on the principle of equality and equal opportunities in the recruitment procedures. - The current admission policy for graduate students at the University of Jordan, specifically PhD, does not keep pace with rapid global changes, and is ineffective and appropriate to contribute to sustainable development. - The current policy aims to increase revenues as a result of increasing the numbers of those admitted to graduate studies, and therefore it focuses on quantity, not Quality. - Lack of understanding and awareness of the heads of academic departments in choosing the appropriate admission policy to attract distinguished students for the doctoral programs that are offered by their departments. Based on the results of the study, the researchers developed admission policies for doctoral students at the University of Jordan and made sure that they could be applied by presenting them to a committee of experts. This study has come out with a set of recommendations, including: The researchers recommend the need to apply the policies reached by this study, and the necessity of introducing academic department heads and assistant deans of faculties to the policies and procedures adopted by the Faculty of Graduate Studies to attract doctoral students at the University of Jordan in order to be fully aware and able to define criteria and the appropriate conditions for choosing an effective admission policy to attract distinguished students for the specializations of doctoral programs offered by their departments, which would improve educational outcomes and scientific research. Keywords: Policies, PhD, Admission, Registration, Labor Market, The World Universities Ranking, University of Jordan, Canadian Universities Experience, Educational Outcomes DOI: 10.7176/JEP/11-17-04 Publication date: June 30th 2020
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".