2. The report includes results of the project “Quality assessment
of research and development at the universities and
institutes of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava
Region”, financed by European Social Fund.
This report originated also with financial aid of the following organisations:
www.pss.sk www.luba.sk www.orange.sk
www.worldbank.sk www.yhman.sk
Media partner of ARRA is:
www.trend.sk
2
3. The authors of this report would like to thank the members of
the Board of Advisors of ARRA, in particular prof. Stich, prof. Brunovsky,
doc. Ferak, prof. Kusa, A. Salner and others, and also the members of
the Board of Trustees (in particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollar) for
their critical but always relevant and constructive comments, and also for
discussions, analyses and reviews of draft material in the production of
the report. One of the factors that enabled ARRA to produce the
following analysis was the fact that the SR Ministry of Education
publishes a great deal of material and information about higher
education. We would like to thank doc. RNDr. Peter Mederly, CSc. for his
valuable discussion of this material. The selection of criteria and the set
up of the methodology used have been taken, with minor modifications,
from the last year’s ARRA Report1. As mentioned in the cited report,
conversations with Don Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the
World Bank arranged for ARRA, made a significant contribution to the
relevant part, and they also deserve our thanks. We would like to point
out, however, that the opinions presented in the following report are not
necessarily identical with those of the persons named here.
The ARRA Agency was able to carry out its activities thanks to
contributions from its sponsors, whether financial, in kind, or in the form
of know how, in particular Prvá stavebná sporiteľňa, Orange Slovensko,
Ľudová banka, the World Bank, GfK – Market Research Institute, Yhman,
Trend weekly, and others. The assessment of the work of the Bratislava
faculties of universities in the field of research and development and
their comparison with SAV institutes was supported by a grant from the
European Social Fund.
1
Report “Assessment of public universities and their faculties (2005)”, ARRA, December 2005 (www.arra.sk)
3
4. Table of contents
Summary.................................................................................................................................. 5
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7
2 The role of rankings ............................................................................................................ 9
3 On assessment methodology ............................................................................................. 10
3.1 Basic principles for assessment of higher education institutions ...................................... 10
3.2 Classification of faculties ............................................................................................. 10
3.3 Criteria .................................................................................................................... 166
4 Basic characteristics of the indicators and their classification into groups ............................... 18
4.1 “Science and Research” Category ................................................................................ 18
4.1.1 “Publications and Citations” Group ........................................................................ 18
4.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group ............................................................................................ 18
4.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ......................................................................................... 18
4.2 “Study and Education” Category .................................................................................. 18
4.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group ............................................................................ 18
4.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group .............................................................................. 19
4.2.3 “University Level Criteria” Group ........................................................................... 19
4.3 “Financing” Category .................................................................................................. 19
5 Method for the assessment of faculties and universities ....................................................... 20
5.1 Illustration of the method for the assessment of faculties and universities....................... 20
6 Commentary on individual indicators .................................................................................. 21
6.1 Science and research.................................................................................................. 21
6.1.1 “Publications and citations” Group ......................................................................... 21
6.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group .......................................................................................... 499
6.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ....................................................................................... 688
6.2 Study and education................................................................................................. 911
6.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group .......................................................................... 911
6.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group .........................................................................12222
6.2.3 University-Level Criteria group .........................................................................14141
6.3 Financing..............................................................................................................14444
7 Comparison of university teachers’ salaries ..................................................................... 1455
8 Aggregate assessment of faculties within groups ............................................................. 1466
9 Aggregate assessment of universities ............................................................................15151
10 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................15252
11 About the authors and the report...............................................................................15353
11.1 People at ARRA .....................................................................................................15353
11.1.1 Board of Advisors ...........................................................................................15353
11.1.2 Board of Trustees ...........................................................................................15353
11.1.3 ARRA members ..............................................................................................15353
11.1.4 ARRA Secretariat ............................................................................................15353
4
5. Summar
on the “PhD Studies” indicator, which focuses on the
ARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing public
education of new scientists. It turned out that there was a
higher education institutions and faculties for 2005.
lack of correlation between scientific performance
(publications and citations VV1 – VV3a) and the number of
The present report follows up the last year’s
PhD students (VV4), thus high numbers of PhD students
assessment of faculties and higher education institutions.
are being trained at institutions with relatively low
The report uses the methodology developed last year.
scientific performance. It was also found that the success
Ninety-eight faculties and two higher education institutions
rate in PhD studies (indicator VV5) was only 30%.
not structured into faculties were divided into six groups
Education institutions with the greatest number of PhD
based on the Frascati Manual: natural sciences (NAT, 10
study graduates are not – with an exception for the winner
faculties), engineering and technology (TECH, 23
in the SOC group (the TVU Faculty of Healthcare and
faculties), medical sciences (MED, 4 faculties), agricultural
Social Work) – the most successful ones in scientific
sciences (AGRO, 6 faculties), social sciences (SOC, 34
production (publications and citations).
faculties), and humanities (HUM, 23 faculties). Of the total
number, seven faculties (four social science faculties, one
The third group among the science and research
faculty of engineering and technology, humanity and
evaluation criteria dealt with the “Grant Success” of the
natural sciences) were not included in the assessment and
faculties (VV7 – VV10). In this group, there was greater
additional 12 were compensated in certain criteria with
diversity among the winners in individual Frascati groups
respect to their short existence.
than in publications or PhD students. Surprisingly, in the
SOC group, a different faculty succeed in each of the
Faculties and higher education institutions were
indicators. Particularly in indicator VV9 (funding from state
assessed using 25 indicators grouped into 3 substantively
programmes and foreign grants), faculties in the HUM and
compatible groups, namely science and research, study
SOC group were generally considerably more successful
and education, and financing. Two indicators from the
than in other indicators in the field of science and
Study and Education group and all indicators from the
research. TU Košice Faculty of Arts was not only the most
Financing group are, with respect to data available, used
successful one in VV9 within the HUM group but also
only on the university level and therefore they are not
among all Slovakia’s faculties under assessment.
included in the resulting assessment of faculties.
Compared to the last year, three new criteria have been
Another large group of criteria is focused on
added (VV2a – Number of citations per publication, VV3a –
“Study and Education”. This group is subdivided into the
Number of papers with more than 25 citations, and VV9 -
“Students and Teachers” and “Applications for Study”
Funding from state programmes and foreign grants).
groups. In the part “Students and Teachers”, an
interesting finding for the SV1 criterion (ratio of the
Indicators in all cases measured performance
number of students to the number of teachers) was made,
intensity rather than total performance. This eliminated the
namely that there are relatively large differences among
impact of the faculty size and the attention was focused on
faculties in one group and even among faculties with very
its quality. On the basis of performance in each of the
similar orientation (for example, the VŠMU Theatre Faculty
criteria, the faculty was assigned a certain number of
8 versus AU Faculty of Music 4 students per teacher, or KU
points. Their average per indicator groups determined the
Faculty of Philosophy 30 and UK Faculty of Philosophy 11
ranking of the given institution within its Frascati group.
students per teacher). At the same time, it turns out that
the ratio of part-time students to full-time students
What is positive is that in comparison with the last continues to rise in Slovakia. In 2005, part-time students
year, a moderate improvement occurred in all parameters comprised 32% of all students; at 16 of 100 faculties,
under assessment and in nearly all institutions under part-time students were even in the majority. In ARRA’s
assessment. view, this increase may threaten the quality of higher
education, as there is presently no sufficient mechanism to
An improvement occurred also in the Science and control the basic standards of part-time study.
Research category of indicators. The number of papers
published by Slovak scientists assessed using the first Like with SV1, it is better in ARRA’s opinion if the
criterion (VV1) has a moderately rising trend. However,
value of the ratio of the number of students to the number
this trend should not be seen necessarily positively.
of professors and associate professors (SV2) is lower. It
Employees of Slovak universities published a total of can be concluded that as expected, this ratio is the lowest
12,172 papers that are recorded in WoK in the period 1996 at faculties of arts. Similarly as with SV1, there are large
– 2005. 7,326 citations of these papers were recorded. Of differences as well in the values, including at very similar
these 12,172 papers, however, 4,846 papers, i.e., 40%, faculties. An extreme example is, in the SOC group, the KU
did not receive a single citation. This fact shows that even Faculty of Healthcare with the largest number of students
the papers’ own author did not cite it during the monitored per professor and associate professor among all faculties
period. Compared to the period of 1995 – 2004, when in Slovakia (503.5) while at a similarly oriented TvU Faulty
there were 3,823 such papers (30%, the total being of Healthcare and Social Work, there are twelve times
11,163), this is an increase by more than 1,000 papers (or
fewer students per professor and associate professor.
ten percentage points) that no one noticed. Thus,
although the quantitative indicator of the number of
The third indicator focused on students and
publications increased, their attractiveness for the world’s
teachers is the “Proportion of Teachers with PhD” (SV3).
scientific community decreased. It is not without interest
At 22 of 100 faculties, at least 75% of teachers have PhD
that the increase in the number of publications nearly
degrees. However, a surprising fact is that only 45% of
coincides with the increase in the number of papers that
university teachers in Slovakia have complete third level of
no one noticed.
higher education and at as many as 38 faculties, not even
two third of teachers have PhD degrees. Within the
In the second group, in the “Science and groups, the situation differs. The largest number of
Research” indicator category, attention was concentrated
5
6. teachers with PhD degrees (as many as 90%) works at the VV1 – VV3a). No other faculty in other groups managed to
TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work in the SOC similarly combine the success in scientific production with
group. the attractiveness for students. Thus, apparently, students
do not consider the institution’s research production to be
Indicator SV4 – “The number of professors and the decisive factor. Although faculties with monopolistic
associate professors divided by the number of all teachers” position have an advantage from this point of view,
shows how many pedagogues having the highest scientific conclusions can be made as to which faculties are the first
rank are among the faculty teaching staff. This ratio varies choice for the applicants.
between 10% and 60% with great differences among
individual faculties in each group. For most of the faculties, The faculties that are most popular with foreign
the value of this ratio is approximately in the middle of the students (SV8) are not identical with those most popular
interval. More than half of the professors and associate with Slovak students (SV7). In general, however, faculties
professors in the teaching staff are at only four of the of the HUM groups are most popular again, including
faculties under assessment, of which two are from the particularly higher education institutions of art and
HUM group (the VSMU Theatre Faculty and the TVU theology (the best being the VŠMU Faculty of Music and
Faculty of Theology), one from the TECH group (the STU Dance with 15.8% of foreign students). The MED group is
Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology) and one from dominated by the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine with
the AGRO group (the TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry). 12.4% of foreign students. The highest percentage of
students with other than Slovak citizenship (18%) is at the
The average age of professors measured in the University of Veterinary Medicine with the other faculties in
SV5 indicator ranges from 51 to 65 years. For most of the the AGRO group, similarly as in the TECH and NAT groups,
faculties, its value is approximately in the middle of the not reaching even two percent. In the SOC group, the
interval. For SV5 as well, there are differences in the most successful Faculty is that of International Relations
average age of the professors within individual groups. having 4.6% of foreign students.
The “youngest” Slovak faculty is the PU Faculty of Greek
Catholic Theology with the average age of professors There can be no doubt that as in the past,
being 51 years. In general, the age of professors in Slovak universities are in the present the heart and the driving
universities is relatively high. force for the development of the knowledge-based society.
They are irreplaceable for the prosperity and positive
The “Applications for study” subgroup assessed development of the fast changing world. There are
the extent, to which education institutions are popular however, two requirements for them to carry out their
among prospective students. Most students relative to tasks: that their free spirit is preserved and that the
planned available places (SV6) traditionally apply at education and research that they provide and carry out
faculties in the HUM and SOC groups. For the most have a high level of quality. This study may also
popular faculties, this is as many as 9 (the TvU Faculty of encourage universities and their faculties to think about
Philosophy) and 8 (the SPU Faculty of Economics and their performance and to try to find ways to improve.
Management) students per planned place. While
traditionally fewer students apply at NAT, TECH and AGRO Once again we are happy to be able to conclude
(for the best faculties, this ranges between two and three that in comparison to 2004, nearly all Slovak university
applicants per planned place), for the TU Košice Faculty of faculties, almost in all parameters, improved their
Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology performance during the year. This has been undoubtedly
(TECH), there are as many as 8 applicants per place contributed to by the improving economic situation of the
available. In the MED group, there are 5.5 students per country, in certain cases also by the ongoing international
planned place at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine. The evaluation of Slovak higher education institutions in
actual students’ interest in studying at a particular faculty cooperation with the European University Association
was measured by comparing the number of registrations (EUA). The ARRA study is trying to reflect and help
to the number of admissions to the given faculty (SV7). monitor this development. We can only hope now that the
Similarly as with the SV6 indicator, most students register situation will continue to improve. It would be very daring
with faculties in the SOC, HUM and MED groups. to believe that two assessments are sufficient to make
Concerning the scientific performance and quality of substantial conclusions on the development trends.
science, it can be concluded that only the UK Faculty of However, it is undoubted that if such assessment
Pharmacy was most popular among students in its group continues to be conducted for a longer period of time, it
(SV7) being, at the same time, the most successful in will be easier to see as to which direction the Slovak
scientific creativity (in publishing and publication citations higher education is taking.
6
7. 1 Introduction
the best universities in the world?” On an invitation from
ARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing
the presidium of the International Ranking Expert Group
public higher education institutions and faculties for
(IREG), ARRA became a member of this expert body and
2005. In its starting points and goals, the report
took part in the international conference “Methodology and
followed up the basic principles and history of higher
Quality Standards of Rankings”, which was held on 19 May
education institutions’ rankings reflected in the first
2006 in Berlin and was attended by nearly 50 experts from
ARRA report on higher education institutions for 2004.
all over the world. At this conference, principles of rankings
It seems that “rankings serve a variety of purposes,
were agreed for the first time5. Being a member of IREG,
good and bad. Rankings are also inevitable – in the era
ARRA is trying to adopt these international principles to the
of massification, those who finance higher education
extent permitted by the present Slovak situation.
and the public want to know which academic
institutions are the best.”2 It is also true that the
Also the European principles of quality assurance,
ranking boom does not go unnoticed by any of the
adopted in 2005 in Bergen by ministers of education within
groups involved.
the Bologna Process6, are relevant for the higher education
and research quality assessment.
It is interesting that even those higher
education institutions that have negative attitudes to
In addition to new features in the field of ranking
ranking impatiently await the results (e.g., of the
on the international level, ARRA brings its own extension of
“Shanghai Ranking”3) to see their ranking and to
this year’s assessment process. A decision was made to
benchmark with other higher education institutions of
extend the higher education institutions assessment based
the world. The reasons are varied; however, the main
on publicly available information with assessment from
ones include:
students’ point of view. To this end, ARRA prepared an
• curiosity as to how we are doing in anonymous student survey in cooperation with GfK –
comparison with the world (unfortunately, there is no Market Research Institute jointly with CKM and with the
Slovak higher education institution among the first 500 support from the Orange Account Foundation. The results
higher education institutions published in the Shanghai of this survey will be published separately in the first
Ranking), quarter of 20077. GfK offered the faculties the possibility of
• massification of higher education and its modifying the questionnaire, asking their own exclusive
impact on the quality of education and research, questions and gaining access to all data gathered about the
• competition for students – domestic and, to faculty. Of all faculties approached, 18 confirmed
an ever greater extent, international, cooperation. Although some of them lack lists of students’
• competitiveness, e-mail addresses, which is a necessary condition for a
• good ranking supporting a good starting faculty’s participation in the survey, it is a positive finding
position in various negotiations, e.g., on funding, etc. that several such faculties will shortly compile a database of
addresses also on the basis of this request. Three faculties
A remarkable finding4 is that there is a strong
responded explicitly negatively, the rest did not respond.
correlation between the research background of a
An overview of individual faculties’ responses is shown in
leader and the position of the university in a world
Table 1.
league table. The higher the ranking of the university,
the more likely it is that the citations of its president
ARRA is grateful for the cooperation received from
will also be high (presidents of the top fifty have 2.5
all faculties that enabled it to approach the students or at
times more citations on average than those of the
least showed a willingness to cooperate, even if their
bottom fifty). Obviously, as everywhere, there are
technical conditions did not enable such cooperation after
exceptions from this correlation, particularly in the field
all. Sadly, on the basis of the above it seems that only less
of art and humanities. However, the trend is apparent.
than 20% of Slovak higher education institutions’ faculties
are interested in knowing the opinion of their students on
ARRA is convinced that besides information on
what and how they are doing. Such disinterest in students’
the ranking of the higher education institutions or their
opinion by faculties exceeds the most pessimistic
faculties in tables (throughout the text, only public
expectations. ARRA appreciates the cooperation and
higher education institutions and their faculties are
support from the University Student Council.
analysed), it is crucial that there is a continuous
discussion on higher education institutions’ quality.
ARRA is pleased to state that the discussion initiated
following the publication of the 2005 Report as well as
the subsequent seminar of invited participants were
held – apart from a few emotional reactions – in a
constructive spirit, particularly with the objective of
trying to analyse the situation and find paths leading
to a higher quality of our higher education.
Two events need to be added to the history of
ranking, which events are of crucial importance for this 5
process. The first was the conference at Leiden The Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education, CEPES,
CHE, IHEP, Berlin, 2006.
University on 16 February 2006 entitled “The 6
http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-
Challenges of University Ranking. How can we identify Main_doc/050221_ENQA_report.pdf
7
In the case of student questionnaires, ARRA approached also
private higher education institutions, as the students’ view of a
2
Altbach, Ph. G., International Higher Education, 42, 6 higher education institution is equally important for public as well
(2006). as private higher education institutions. For explanation of reasons
3
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn for which ARRA is not yet assessing private higher education
4
Goodall, A., International Higher Education. 42, 3, (2006). institutions, see below in the text.
7
8. Table 1: Faculties that responded to the offer of participation in the student survey
Are interested
Faculty of International Relations University of Economics in Bratislava
Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina
Faculty of Philosophy Catholic university in Ružomberok
Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Comenius University in Bratislava
Informatics
Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica
International Business College IMS in
Prešov
Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra
Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica
Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University in Bratislava
Faculty of Economics Technical university in Košice
University of St. Cyril and Methodius in
Faculty of Mass Media Communication
Trnava
Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University in Bratislava
Faculty of Arts Comenius University in Bratislava
Faculty of Operation and Economics of University of Žilina
Transport and Communications
Faculty of Business Management University of Economics in Bratislava
Faculty of Material Sciences and Slovak University of Technology in
Technology Bratislava
Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen
Faculty of Education University of Trnava
Are not interested
Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín
Faculty of Law Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica
Constantine the Philosopher University
Faculty of Natural Sciences
in Nitra
8
9. 2 The role of rankings
indicators significantly more important than others (e.g.
The basic and common characteristic of all foreign
research performance is given a higher value than, say,
approaches to rankings (ARRA’s assessment including) is
the number of students per teacher) and may therefore
that they attempt to provide information to the general
give them a different weighting. This can in turn make a
public, in particular to prospective students. The objective
fundamental difference in the ranking of the faculties and
is to help them select a suitable school or faculty and/or
universities in “his/her” resulting table. For this reason
area of study or study programme. Ranking is not in
ranking provides an image of the university and its status
principle an activity carried out for its own sake to put
alongside other universities entirely in terms of the
universities into an order (although such evaluations are
selected indicators. However, everyone involved in
also published). Ranking is, or is trying to be, an aid for
creating ranking tries to choose a range of criteria and
people who are choosing a place to study and need
indicators that will be relevant to the broadest possible
orientation in the education marketplace.
group of recipients.
No ranking system can automatically identify the
This is one of the reasons why ARRA does not
best faculty or university for an applicant but the
assign weights to individual indicators. All indicators enter
information provided can be of great assistance in their
the assessment within their group with the same weight.
decision-making. It appears that at present, the position of
However, in cooperation with the Trend weekly, the
a school in this or that ladder is a secondary factor in their
interested parties are able (through www.arra.sk or
choice of where to study. This is applicable also to
www.etrend.sk) to connect to a specially set up calculator
countries where ranking has a longer tradition than in
and to rank the faculties with custom weights assigned to
Slovakia. The main factor is whether the given higher
individual criteria.
education institution will enable them to study the area of
study that they are interested in. It is only after that – if
A number of universities insist that this form of
there are a number of providers – that they start to
comparison has limited significance because every
consider other criteria such as the availability of
university is unique and special in some way, or has its
accommodation, the costs associated with study, the
own specific characteristics. One could agree with the
attractiveness of the place of study, the options for sports,
opinion that there are no two identical universities in the
cultural and other activities and also the standing of the
world. However, if there are, for example, four faculties of
faculty or the university among other institutions. This is
law, five faculties of philosophy or three faculties of
one of the reasons why several ranking agencies included
medicine, providing the same degree for the same form of
“calculators” in their websites that can be used to increase
higher education in the same area or programme, a
or reduce the weight of individual criteria, to choose those
question could be asked which of them is the best in their
that the applicant considers important8. ARRA too, in
group, which of them is outstanding and in what respect.
cooperation with the TREND weekly, provides this option
as described below.
It is also true that it is not possible to compare the
incomparable, such as universities with 13 different
In addition to providing information to the public
faculties and a highly focused institution that is not even
and prospective students, assessments of quality aim to
divided into faculties. An appropriate solution to this
increase competition among universities through their
situation is the categorisation of the science and
output so that – as in the world's advanced economies –
technology subjects according to the “Frascati Manual”. In
prospective students are guided not only by the
the OECD countries (the Organization for Economic
geographical proximity of a university but also the quality
Cooperation and Development), the Frascati Manual has
of the education that it provides. We expect that the
been used to categorise subjects in science and
importance of quality factors will increase hand in hand
technology since 1963.9
with the complexity and the technical and intellectual
demands of the Slovak economy.
In the final analysis, it is up to prospective
students to decide, just as employers must decide when
The second common characteristic of assessments
employing graduates. And it is always better if decisions
is that although they use different numbers of criteria,
are taken on the basis of accessible and verified data
there is nearly always a relatively small number of groups
rather than traditional, often inaccurate and incomplete
of criteria that reflect the institution’s performance in
impressions or feelings associated with the given
research and education and related parameters,
institution. The ARRA assessment has the ambition of
perspectives on the institution from within (students and
becoming one of several bases serving as a source of
the academic community) and also from outside (e.g.
information for decision-making.
employers, or even the school’s own graduates).
Another very important characteristic of ranking is
that every such assessment must always be looked at in
terms of the criteria that it uses. In other words, every
ranking corresponds only to the criteria that are chosen
and used. In addition every compiler (but also every
reader) may consider (and then also makes) certain
8
For example:
- www.che.de/cms/?aetObiect=2&aetName=CHE-
RankinQ&QetLanQ=de,
9
- The authorship of this manual is quite often attributed incorrectly.
www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulrankina/04690.en.ht Because the first meeting of OECD experts in this matter took
ml, place in 1963 in the Italian village of Frascati, the work that was
- www.studiekeuzel23.nl/web/site/default.aspx, created there was called the Manual from Frascati or The Frascati
- www.etrend.sk Manual.
9
10. 3 On assessment methodology
faculties with social science faculties. However, it will be
possible to compare faculties with the same (or similar)
3.1 Basic principles for scientific orientation side by side. Prospective students will
assessment of higher education thus be able to determine which faculty ranks highest
among those providing education in their area of interest.
institutions ARRA will also separately publish, in overview tables, the
performance of faculties in groups of related criteria,
ARRA’s approach in assessing Slovak universities is the
which will facilitate comparison based on what the specific
same as is used elsewhere in the world. It is based on
applicant (or other recipient of the report) considers
three pillars. The first is quantitative information in the
important.
public domain, which is generally accepted as a reliable
indicator of academic quality. The second is an
To make it even more obvious that what is
independent view of the results. The third is a group
important is the ranking within groups and that in Slovak
(cluster) approach to the assessment of faculties and
situation, universities cannot be compared among
higher education institutions.
themselves, as of this year, ARRA will not be publishing
the cumulative table ranking all Slovak public higher
The procedure that ARRA has used in assessing
education institutions. At the same time, however, it is
public universities (when talking about Slovak universities
valid that the quality of a higher education institution is
from now on, only public institutions will be referred to) in
determined by the quality of its faculties. ARRA, therefore,
Slovakia in 2005, was based on the following steps:
like in the last year, will rank the higher education
• the selection of indicators for the institutions on the basis of the results of faculties included
quality of education and research in individual according to the Frascati Manual.
universities and the assignment of a certain number
of points to each faculty for the performance in each The criteria used by ARRA are identical with or
indicator (indicators are arranged into groups and similar to those used elsewhere in the world. Of course,
each group of indicators gained a certain number of they reflect certain specific features of Slovak higher
points),10 education. ARRA used only information in the public
• the division of faculties into six groups domain and did not request information from individual
according to the Frascati Manual (details given below) faculties in 2006. The ranking produced is based on official
in order to compare only faculties that have the same data and domestic and foreign sources in the public
orientation and similar working conditions, domain.
• assigning point scores to faculties (the
ranking of faculties in individual groups according to
the Frascati Manual is based on average points score 3.2 Classification of faculties
in individual groups of indicators),
• calculating point scores for the higher The faculties of Slovak universities were divided into
education institutions in individual groups according groups based on their field of study using the definitions
to the Frascati Manual (the ranking of the higher given in the Frascati Manual as follows:
education institution in the given group is given by
• natural sciences (NAT) consisting of mathematics
the average assessment of all its faculties included in
and computer sciences, physical sciences, chemical
that group).
sciences, biological sciences and Earth and related
The most recent version of the Frascati Manual of environmental sciences,
200211 divides higher education institutions’ subjects into 6 • engineering and technology (TECH) consisting of
groups: civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical
engineering, chemical engineering, and other
a) natural sciences,
engineering and technological sciences,
b) engineering and technology,
• medical sciences (MED) including basic medicine
c) medical sciences,
and dentistry, clinical medicine and pharmaceutical
d) agricultural sciences, sciences (nursing and healthcare are included in the
e) social sciences, social sciences),
f) humanities. • agricultural sciences (AGRO) consisting of
From 1 June 2005 this division will be included in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, veterinary medicine
Slovak law12, i.e. also in the Slovak research community.13 and allied subjects,
• social sciences (SOC) including psychology,
After the introduction of such a division into the economics, educational sciences, law, political
ranking, it is clear that theological faculties will not be science, nursing, healthcare, other social sciences.
compared with medical faculties or technically oriented • humanities (HUM) are history, languages and
literature and other humanities.
10
Certain new indicators were included in 2006. However, to be
Some higher education faculties are difficult to
able to compare and hence to identify the trends in individual categorise into a particular subject area due to the
institutions’ development, institutions are ranked also based on diversity of their components. Their various components
exclusively the quality indicators used last year. (e.g., departments) conduct activities lying in multiple
11
Frascati Manual, 6th Edition, OECD 2002, Paris, p. 67. subject areas. An example is the faculties of philosophy,
12
Act No. 172/2005 on the Organisation of State Support for whose activities are included in both the humanities and
Research and Development and Additions to Act No. 575/2001 on social sciences groups. They were classified according to
the Organisation of Government Activities and the Organisation of
the Central State Administration as amended.
the subject area group, into which the majority of activities
13
A more detailed breakdown is given in the International fall. It was mentioned in the last year’s report that if the
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997, UNESCO, dean of a particular faculty contacts ARRA to request that
November 1997, and is described below in the text.
10
11. the faculty that he or she manages should be classified in
a different subject area, ARRA considers the request. The
reclassification of the Žilina University Faculty of
Management and Informatics has been requested by its
dean and ARRA accommodated this request. No similar
request occurred so far.14
14
Part of the professional public objected to the inclusion of the
TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work among social science
faculties, particularly because most of its research activities are
focused on medicine and healthcare disciplines. However, faculties
of this type are typical representatives of social science faculties.
The fact that the number of publications, in particular, by two
representatives of the particular faculty in the field of drugs
comprises nearly half of the sum of publications by all remaining 39
faculties of the social science group, and the number of citations is
even more than four times higher, is a sad indication of these
faculties’ condition; however, it cannot serve as a reason to change
a procedure used generally in the world.
11
12. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA
University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation
Akadémia umení www.aku.sk AU
(Academy of Arts)
HUM Fakulta dramatických umení DramUm AU
(Faculty of Dramatic Arts)
HUM Fakulta muzických umení MuzUm AU
(Faculty of Performing Arts)
HUM Fakulta výtvarných umení VýtvarUm AU
(Faculty of Fine Arts and Design)
Ekonomická univerzita www.euba.sk EU BA
(University of Economics)
SOC Fakulta hospodárskej informatiky HospInfo EU BA
(Faculty of Economic Informatics)
SOC Fakulta medzinárodných vzťahov MedzVzťah EU BA
(Faculty of International Relations)
SOC Fakulta podnikového manažmentu PodnMan EU BA
(Faculty of Business Management)
SOC Národohospodárska fakulta NárHosp EU BA
(Faculty of National Economy)
SOC Obchodná fakulta Obchod EU BA
(Faculty of Commerce)
SOC Podnikovohospodárska fakulta PodnHosp EU BA
(Faculty of Business Economics)
Katolícka univerzita www.ku.sk KU
(Catholic University)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil KU
(Faculty of Philosophy)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag KU
(Pedagogical Faculty)
HUM Teologická fakulta Teol KU
(Faculty of Theology)
Prešovská univerzita www.unipo.sk PU
(University of Prešov)
HUM Fakulta humanitných a prírodných vied HumPrír PU
(Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences)
SOC Fakulta manažmentu Manag PU
(Faculty of Management)
SOC Fakulta športu TV PU
(Faculty of Sports)
SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva Zdravotnícka PU
(Faculty of Health Care)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil PU
(Faculty of Arts)
HUM Gréckokatolícka bohoslovecká Greckokat PU
(Greek Catholic Theological Faculty)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag PU
(Faculty of Education)
HUM Pravoslávna bohoslovecká fakulta Pravosl PU
(Orthodox Theological Faculty)
Slovenská poľnohospodárska www.spu.sk SPU
univerzita
(Slovak University of Agriculture)
AGRO Fakulta agrobiológie potravinových zdrojov Agro SPU
(Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources)
AGRO Fakulta biotechnológie a potravinárstva BiotPotr SPU
(Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences)
SOC Fakulta ekonomiky a manažmentu EkonomMan. SPU
(Faculty of Economics and Management)
SOC Fakulta európskych štúdií a regionálneho rozvoja Eur.ŠT. SPU
(Faculty of European Studies and Regional
Development)
AGRO Fakulta záhradníctva a krajinného inžinierstva Záhrad SPU
(Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering)
TECH Mechanizačná fakulta Mech SPU
(Faculty of Agricultural Engineering)
12
13. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)
University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation
Slovenská technická univerzita www.stuba.sk STUBA
(Slovak University of Technology)
TECH Fakulta architektúry Archit STUBA
(Faculty of Architecture)
TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky (Faculty of Electrical Elektr STUBA
Engineering)
TECH Fakulta chemickej a potravinárskej technológie ChemTechn STUBA
(Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology)
NAT Fakulta informatiky a informačných technológií Infor.aInf.Tech.
(Faculty of Informatics and Information STUBA
Technologies)
TECH Materiálovotechnologická fakulta MatTechn STUBA
(Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology)
TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav STUBA
(Faculty of Civil Engineering)
TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj STUBA
(Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)
Technická univerzita Košice www.tuke.sk TUKE
(Technical University of Košice)
SOC Ekonomická fakulta Ekonom TUKE
(Faculty of Economics)
TECH Fakulta BERG Ban TUKE
(Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and
Geotechnology)
TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky Elektr TUKE
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics)
HUM Fakulta umení Umení TUKE
(Faculty of Arts)
TECH Fakulta výrobných technológií VýrTech TUKE
(Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies)
TECH Hutnícka fakulta Hutn TUKE
(Faculty of Metallurgy)
TECH Letecká fakulta Let TUKE
(Faculty of Aeronautics)
TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav TUKE
(Faculty of Civil Engineering)
TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj TUKE
(Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)
Technická univerzita Zvolen www.tuzvo.sk TUZV
(Technical University in Zvolen)
AGRO Drevárska fakulta Drev TUZV
(Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology)
NAT Fakulta ekológie a environmentalistiky Ekolenv TUZ
(Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences)
TECH Fakulta environmentálnej a výrobnej techniky V EnvirTech TUZ
(Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing
Technology)
AGRO Lesnícka fakulta Les TUZV
(Faculty of Forestry)
Trenčianska univerzita A. www.tnuni.sk TUAD
Dubčeka
(Alexander Dubček University in
Trenčín)
TECH Fakulta mechatroniky MechTron TUAD
(Faculty of Mechatronics)
TECH Fakulta priemyselných technológií PriemTechn TUAD
(Faculty of Industrial Technologies)
SOC Fakulta sociálno-ekonomických vzťahov SocEkon TUAD
(Faculty of Social and Economic Relations)
TECH Fakulta špeciálnej techniky ŠpecTechn TUAD
(Faculty of Special Technology)
13
14. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)
University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation
Trnavská univerzita www.truni.sk TVU
(University of Trnava)
SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce ZdravSoc TVU
(Faculty of Health Care and Social Work)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil TVU
(Faculty of Arts)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag TVU
(Faculty of Education)
SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv TVU
(Faculty of Law)
HUM Teologická fakulta Teol TVU
(Faculty of Theology)
Univerzita Komenského www.uniba.sk UK
(Comenius University)
HUM Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta Evanj UK
(Evangelical Theological Faculty)
SOC Fakulta managementu Manag UK
(Faculty of Management)
NAT Fakulta matematiky, fyziky a informatiky FMFI UK
(Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics)
SOC Fakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied SocEkon UK
(Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences)
SOC Fakulta telesnej výchovy a športu TV UK
(Faculty of Physical Education and Sports)
MED Farmaceutická fakulta Farm UK
(Faculty of Pharmacy)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UK
(Faculty of Arts)
MED Jesseniova lekárska fakulta JessenLek UK
(Jessenius Faculty of Medicine)
MED Lekárska fakulta Lek UK
(Faculty of Medicine)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UK
(Faculty of Education)
SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UK
(Faculty of Law)
NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta Prír UK
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
HUM Rímskokatolícka cyr.-met. bohoslovecká fakulta RímsKat UK
(Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and
Methodius)
Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa www.ukf.sk UKF
(Constantine the Philosopher
University)
NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UKF
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
SOC Fakulta sociálnych vied Soc UKF
(Faculty of Social Sciences and Health)
SOC Fakulta stredoeurópskych štúdií Stredoeur.Št. UKF
(Faculty of Central European Studies)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UKF
(Faculty of Arts)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UKF
(Faculty of Education)
Univerzita Mateja Bela www.umb.sk UMB
(Matej Bel University)
SOC Ekonomická fakulta Ekonom UMB
(Faculty of Economics)
HUM Fakulta humanitných vied Hum UMB
(Faculty of the Humanities)
SOC Fakulta politických vied Polit UMB
(Faculty of Political Sciences)
NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UMB
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
HUM Filologická fakulta Filolo UMB
(Faculty of Philology)
SOC Pedagogická fakulta Pedag UMB
(Faculty of Education)
SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UMB
(Faculty of Law)
14
15. Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)
University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation
Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika www.upjs.sk UPJŠ
(Pavol Jozef Šafárik University)
SOC Fakulta verejnej správy VerSpr UPJŠ
(Faculty of Public Administration)
MED Lekárska fakulta Lek UPJŠ
(Faculty of Medicine)
SOC Právnicka fakulta Práv UPJŠ
(Faculty of Law)
NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta Prír UPJŠ
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda www.ucm.sk UCM
(University of St. Cyril and
Methodius)
SOC Fakulta masmediálnej komunikácie MasMed UCM
(Faculty of Mass Media Communication)
NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír UCM
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
HUM Filozofická fakulta Fil UCM
(Faculty of Arts)
Univerzita veterinárskeho AGRO www.uvm.sk UVL
lekárstva
(University of Veterinary
Medicine)
Vysoká škola múzických umení www.vsmu.sk VŠMU
(Academy of Music and Dramatic
Arts)
HUM Divadelná fakulta Divadelná VŠMU
(Faculty of Theatre Arts)
HUM Filmová a televízna fakulta FilmTel VŠMU
(Faculty of Film and Television)
HUM Hudobná a tanečná fakulta HudTan VŠMU
(Faculty of Music and Dance)
Vysoká škola výtvarných umení HUM www.vsvu.sk VŠVU
(Academy of Fine Arts and
Design)
Žilinská univerzita www.utc.sk ŽU
(University of Žilina)
TECH Elektrotechnická fakulta Elektr ŽU
(Faculty of Electrical Engineering)
SOC Fakulta PEDAS Pedas ŽU
(Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport
and Communications)
NAT Fakulta prírodných vied Prír ŽU
(Faculty of Natural Sciences)
SOC Fakulta riadenia a informatiky Riadenia ŽU
(Faculty of Management and Informatics)
TECH Fakulta špeciálneho inžinierstva ŠpecInž ŽU
(Faculty of Special Engineering)
TECH Stavebná fakulta Stav ŽU
(Faculty of Civil Engineering)
TECH Strojnícka fakulta Stroj ŽU
(Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)
VV1 criterion as if it had 10 publications (the number of
After discussions with higher education institutions
publications will be divided by the number of years of
and with the expert public, ARRA carried out two
faculty’s existence and multiplied by ten, i.e., the length of
modifications in the assessment. It decided not to assess
the period under assessment). An overview of the changes
faculties that had not had at least one complete education
is shown in Tables 3 and 4.
cycle completed in 2005, i.e., those that were formed in
2003 and afterwards. At the same time, it decided to
In this year either, ARRA does not assess private
assign compensation points to more recently established
higher education institutions. The reason is the absence of
faculties (established in 1996 – 2002) in criteria concerning
comparable data and the fact that an overwhelming
longer periods (that is, VV1, VV2, VV3, and VV3a)
majority of them has been in existence for a period shorter
depending on the length of their existence. The
than 3 years. However, the assessment of private higher
compensation points will not be apparent in data charts
education institutions and their comparison to the public
but in assignment of points in individual criteria. For
ones is a task faced by ARRA in the forthcoming future.
example, a faculty existing for 4 years having 4
publications per creative worker will be assessed in the
15
16. Table 3: Faculties not assessed in 2006
University Faculty Established
Catholic University Faculty of Health Care 2004
University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004
University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004
Slovak Technical University Faculty of Informatics and Information 2004
Technologies
Technical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2004
Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004
Catholic University Faculty of Theology 2003
Table 4: Faculties assigned compensation points in 2006
University Faculty Established Compensation
factor
Catholic University Faculty of Philosophy 2002 10/4
Catholic University Pedagogical Faculty 2002 10/4
University of Prešov Faculty of Health Care 2002 10/4
Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of Biotechnology and Food 2002 10/4
Sciences
Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of European Studies and 2002 10/4
Regional Development
Comenius University Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences 2002 10/4
Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of SocialSciences and Health 2002 10/4
University of Žilina Faculty of Special Engineering 2002 10/4
University of Economics Faculty of International Relations 2000 10/6
Technical University of Košice Faculty of Arts 1999 10/7
University of Trnava Faculty of Law 1999 10/7
Pavol Jozef Šafárik University Faculty of Public Administration 1997 10/7
Numbers for professors and associate professors
3.3 Criteria refer to the relative average number of chairs occupied in
2005.
The criteria, by which ARRA produced its rankings, focus
on the intensity of performance rather than on the overall In other assessments as well, the evaluation of
performance. For example, one of the criteria is the total institutions with a focus on humanities – and partially also
number of publications by the given faculty listed in the on social sciences – represents a certain problem. ARRA
Web of Knowledge database produced by the company sought special criteria and internationally comparable,
Thomson Scientific Co. (“WoK” )15 divided by the number publicly accessible data for social sciences and humanities.
of creative workers in the faculty (teachers and Even “Shanghai” was not successful in this respect.
researchers). If the number of creative workers did not Although The Times Higher Education Supplement17 uses a
divide the overall number of publications, the size of the standard criterion of the number of citations per
faculty would be the main influence and not the intensity publication for social sciences, it does not do so for
of its work. humanities. On the basis of discussions on this topic, ARRA
approached the concerned faculties with a request of
In 2005, ARRA used a number of criteria from cooperation in this sensitive matter and it will seek a
those initially proposed and discussed with domestic and solution that will more accurately reflect the quality of
foreign experts, as shown in Table 5. A complete list of these faculties’ scientific work. It is encouraging that
criteria, at which the assessment has the ambition to several faculties have already promised such cooperation
arrive, is given in the last year’s report. ARRA will asses and have also proposed specific solutions.
the criteria from the field of student comfort in the spring
of 2007, in the framework of the student survey16 already Until the establishment of a new assessment
mentioned. method, if any, ARRA will proceed identically as in the
previous year, that is, use identical criteria for both HUM
Some data were available only for universities as a and SOC as in other groups of faculties. One of the
whole and not for individual faculties (marked with asterisk reasons for such a decision is the fact that among faculties
in Table 5). Therefore, these are not included in the final focused on humanities and social sciences, there are
assessment of the faculties. several faculties achieving good assessment even under
these relatively strenuous conditions, and had they been
15
left out of the report or had the assessment using
http://www.thomson.com/scientific/scientific.isp. The Thomson standard criteria been abandoned, it could have been
Web of Knowledge (WoK) includes the following databases: Web
of Science (WoS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI- these faculties that might feel aggrieved.
EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts &
Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and Essential Science
Indicators (ESI). Thanks to the SR Ministry of Education, all
universities in Slovakia have access to this database, as do the
university teachers and research and artistic employees, the
Accreditation Commission, the SR Ministry of Education, and the
Slovak Academy of Sciences.
16
The assessment in this field is based on the student survey.
Considering the organisation of the academic year, an ideal time
for data collection is November and December. However, data
processing will take some time, therefore it cannot be included in
17
this report and will be published separately. THES, 27 October 2006, p. 9
16
17. Table 5: Criteria for assessing universities
Area Code Description
VV1 Number of publications in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker
VV2 Number of citations in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker
VV2a Number of citations in WoK per publication in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005
Number of publications in WoK having at least 5 citations in WoK for the years
VV3
1996 – 2005 per creative worker
Number of publications in WoK having at least 25 citations in WoK for the years
VV3a
1996 – 2005 per creative worker
Science and
VV4 Number of full-time PhD students per professor or associate professor in 2005
research
Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2003 – 2005 in proportion to the
VV5
number of professors and associate professors
The number of full-time PhD students divided by the number of bachelor’s and
VV6
master’s degree full-time students
VV7 Grant funding from the KEGA and VEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005
VV8 Grant funding from the APVV agency per creative worker in 2005
VV9 Funding from foreign grants and state programmes per creative worker
VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per creative worker
SV1 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per teacher in 2005
Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per professor or
SV2
associate professor in 2005
Proportion of professors, associate professors and other teachers with PhD to the
SV3
total number of teachers
Study and SV4 Proportion of professors and associate professors to all teachers
education SV5 Average age of active professors
Ratio of the actual number of applications received to the planned number in
SV6
2005
SV7 Ratio of registered and admitted students in 2005
SV8 Proportion of foreign students
Proportion of graduates unemployed for longer than 3 months of institution’s
SV9*
graduates in 2005
Number of students taking part in study abroad (SAIA administered scholarship
SV10*
programmes and the Socrates EC programme) per 100 students
F1* Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per student
Proportion of the result of the university’s business activities to the overall costs
Financing F2*
of its main activities
Proportion of the grants obtained to the overall costs of institution’s main
F3*
activities
17
