Now the British Academy Sees a Problem

Yesterday I referred to the poor numeracy skills of British (England and Northern Ireland) tertiary graduates reported by the OECD.

Now the British Academy has had its say. It reports that the performance of British school pupils is mediocre and that many undergraduate students are weak in statistics.

But it looks like middling (compared to the OECD average) secondary school students become almost rock bottom (in the OECD) tertiary graduates. Could it be that British universities are actually subtracting relative value from their students?

The Academy notes:

Our school pupils tend to be ranked only in the middle of developed nations in mathematics. Our undergraduates embark on degree courses with varying, and often weak, fluency in statistics. And, in the workplace, demand for more advanced quantitative skills has risen sharply in the past two decades.

Perhaps this has something to do with relatively high graduation rates at British universities so that mediocre students with weak numeracy skills will be recorded as tertiary graduates while their counterparts in most of the OECD will drop out and remain classified as secondary graduate. Even if that were the case the mediocrity of secondary students and tertiary graduates would still need to be addressed.

The Academy proposes a strategy that includes improving the quality of quantitative skills teaching, reviewing school curricula and addressing the early dropping of maths by secondary school students.

I suspect that that will be insufficient.

Today India, Tomorrow Japan, Then ....

The ranking businesses are extending their global tentacles. Times Higher Education has produced a "snapshot" MENA ranking that produced interesting results -- Texas A&M University Qatar top for research impact -- and will be announcing their world rankings from Melbourne.

Meanwhile, QS will be in India next week to reveal their latest BRICS rankings and has been getting attention in new places for its subject rankings that get to places other rankings won't go.

With QS getting more international, it is no surprise to hear that Mitsui & Co, Ltd, has purchased shares in QS:

'Nunzio Quacquarelli, CEO of QS said the investment from Mutsui “can especially support our development in Asia” adding, “we were seeking and have found a likeminded company which shares our long term vision” '.

 This is not the first sign of Mitsui's interest in tertiary education:

'Last year the company also invested $5m in Synergis Education, an education company specialising in online and on the ground adult learner programmes.
“We aim to use our experience in the online education field to create new services,” said Takeshi Akutsu, GM of Mitsui Service Business Division in a statement.
“At the same time, through this business we will help to nurture the global human resources needed by the global economy.” '

I wonder if QS will try and start ranking online courses.next.

What's the Problem with U-Multirank and AHELO?

In a recent post, I discussed the contrast between the poor skills of young people in the UK (strictly speaking Northern Ireland and England) and the high regard in which  British universities are held by the brand name rankers.

There is a piece of data in the skills report from the OECD that is interesting in this respect. Figure 2.2 shows the average numeracy skills of new graduates (age 16-29, 2012). It is depressing reading. The data for tertiary graduates shows that only Italy does worse than the UK and Ireland is either the same or almost the same.The US is very slightly ahead. The top scorers are Austria, Flanders and the Czech Republic.

Something that should have everybody running around doing research and forming  committees is that British tertiary graduates are only very slightly better than most European secondary graduates and slightly better than South Koreans with less than an upper secondary qualification.

It is possible, indeed quite probable, that British tertiary graduates do better on verbal skills and likely that they could conduct themselves well in interviews. Perhaps also, it is places like the University of East London and Bolton University that are dragging down the British average. But this dramatically poor performance is such a glaring contrast to the preening self satisfaction of the higher education establishment that some discussion at least is called for.

We may be seeing an explanation for the reluctance of the Russell Group and its orbiters and the Ivy League to cooperate with U-Multirank and their disdain for the AHELO project that is in marked contrast with their support for the trusted and prestigious THE rankings. They are quite happy to be assessed on reputation, resources, income and citations but comparison with the cognitive skills of graduates from the upstarts of East Asia and perhaps Eastern and Central Europe  is something to be avoided.

Why Russia Might Rise Fairly Quickly in the Rankings After Falling a Bit

An article  by Alex Usher in Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, reprinted in University World News, suggests five structural reasons why Russian universities will not rise very quickly in the global rankings. These are:

• the concentration of resources in academies rather than universities

• excessive specialisation among existing universities

• a shortage of researchers  caused by the economic crisis of the nineties

• excessive bureaucratic control over research projects

• limited fluency in English.

Over the next couple of years things might even get a bit worse. QS are considering introducing a sensible form of field normalisation, just for the five main subject groups. This might not happen since they are well aware of the further advantages this will give to English speaking universities, especially Oxbridge and places like Yale and Princeton, that are strong in the humanities and social sciences. But if it did it would not be good for Russian universities. Meanwhile, THE has spoken about doing something about hugely cited multi-authored physics papers and that could drastically affect institutions like MEPhI.

But after that, there are special features in the QS and THE world rankings that could be exploited by Russian universities. 

Russia is surrounded by former Soviet countries where Russian is widely used and which could provide large numbers of international research collaborators, an indicator in the THE rankings, and could be a source of international students and faculty, indicators in the THE and QS rankings and a source of respondents to the THE and QS academic surveys.

Russia might also consider tapping the Chinese supply of bright students for STEM subjects. It is likely that the red bourgeoisie will start wondering about the wisdom of sending their heirs to universities that give academic credit for things like walking around with a mattress or  not shaving armpit hair and think about a degree in engineering from Moscow State or MEPhI.

Russian universities also appear to have a strong bias towards applied sciences and vocational training that should, if marketed properly, produce high scores in the QS employer survey and the THE Industry Income: Innovation indicator.