Comparison of university evaluation by institution and commercial university evaluation

本研究旨在比较两种大学评估方案：机构大学评估和商业大学评估。前者是由日本国立学位大学评价院和美国的认证协会等公共机构进行评价的评价方案。后者是一种以商业为目的的评估方案，如《美国新闻与世界报道》的“美国最佳大学”和《泰晤士报高等教育副刊》的“世界大学排名”。我们比较了这两种大学评价方案的特点。两者的共同特点和背景因素是强烈的评价需求，尤其是对学生、家长和学校本身的评价需求。在高等教育大众化、全球化的时代，对高等教育的问责性和信息准确性提出了更高的要求。然而，每个目的的目的、背景和标准都大不相同。然后对两所世界大学的排名进行了详细的统计分析；上海交通大学“世界学术大学排名”和《泰晤士报高等教育副刊》“世界大学排名”前者是机构评价大学的典型案例，后者是商科大学排名的典型案例。这两个排名的共同特点是“英语语言”的优势。这种趋势在排名中更为明显。在这两个排名中，只有一个共同的标准是引文索引。但同一被引指标的两个得分之间相关性不高。我们得出结论，这两个排名是非常不同的大学评估方案。我们可以从这两个方案中获得一些建议，以完善我们的大学评估方案。

This Research aims to compare two university evaluation schemes : university evaluation by institution and commercial university evaluation. The former is an evaluation scheme where the evaluation is done by public institutions such as National Institute of Academic Degrees and University Evaluation in Japan and accreditation associations in the US. The latter is an evaluation scheme for commercial purpose such as "America's Best Colleges" by U. S. News and World Report and "World University Rankings" by Times Higher Education Supplement.We compare features of these two university evaluation schemes. The common feature and background factors of two are a strong demand of evaluation especially for students, parents, and universities themselves. Especially the accountability and correct information are required in the age of massification and globalization of higher education. However, the purposes, backgrounds, and criteria are very different according to each purpose.Then we investigate two world university rankings minutely by statistical analysis ; "The World Academic University Ranking" by The Shanghai Jiao Tong University and "World University Rankings" by Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). The former is a typical case of university evaluation by institution, and the latter is a typical case of commercial university ranking. The common feature of both rankings is the advantage of "English language." This tendency is stronger in THES rankings. Only one common criterion used in both rankings is the citation index. However the correlation between two scores of the same citation index is not high.We conclude these two rankings are very different university evaluation schemes. We can acquire some suggestions from both schemes to improve our university evaluation scheme.