這個 QS 排名是有些 unethical ,從大學收錢

來源: STEMkid 2024-06-07 15:30:00 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (2479 bytes)

Cash for Gold

The most brazen attempt to use the increasing importance and prestige of global university rankings has been by QS World Rankings. Alongside its ostensibly objective list of what it considers the world’s top 800 universities, QS World Rankings offers a parallel rating-system; a paid for, opt-in gold-star service. Universities that pay for this service are evaluated against a set of 51 criteria, and awarding between one and five (and a five plus) stars in eight different categories. Alongside its published list of 800, the awarded number of gold stars appear next to the universities name. Universities that do not appear in the rankings can also utilise this gold-star service. Take for instance Karaganda Economic University, located in the fourth largest city in Kazakhstan. According to the criteria set out by QS for its World Rankings, this institution is not among the top 800 universities in the world. Yet according to the QS gold-star service, Karaganda Economic University is rated with three gold stars.

 

Similar universities around the world, either not included in the world rankings or which sit on the lower end of the league table, pay large amounts for this service, presumably to market themselves as a gold-star accredited university. According to Inside Higher Education in 2013, this service cost $9,850 as well as “an additional annual licensing fee of $6,850 for each of the three years the license is valid, allowing them [the universities] to use QS’s graphics and logos in their promotional materials. This brings the total cost to a participating university to $30,400 for three years.” The prestige of the QS name, along with the increasing use of business style marketing at universities, justifies universities paying such prices.

 

QS maintains that this gold-star service is separate to its world rankings and is simply intended to provide more in-depth information to students deciding upon their university. Dr Marginson is not convinced, claiming that “the use of client-orientated, paid for ‘stars’…conflicts with the rankings process, in that it adds a fake valuation – any valuation that you can purchase has no valid foundation, surely – alongside what is meant to be an objective ranking.” Currently, QS World Rankings is the only top global ranking to offer such a paid for service

所有跟帖: 

如果能證明排名跟收錢掛鉤,就算受賄吧? -數與形- 給 數與形 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:31:05

FBI 管這些嗎? FIFA的都被收拾了 -東西南北衫- 給 東西南北衫 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:31:57

可以比較的是Rating Agency, 像S&P, Moody's, 公司的rating和service完全獨立 -東西南北衫- 給 東西南北衫 發送悄悄話 (35 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:36:09

r u not kidding? -windflypig- 給 windflypig 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:38:52

有什麽問題嗎? -東西南北衫- 給 東西南北衫 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:39:27

08-09危機一部分就是拜他們的功勞,收錢亂打分,跟QS有什麽兩樣?更惡心的是,這些驚天大案ZF假裝不存在、專注於莫須有 -windflypig- 給 windflypig 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:41:37

哈哈, 那是從前, 現在至少紙麵上獨立, 有谘詢公司背書 -東西南北衫- 給 東西南北衫 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:44:22

你信就好 -windflypig- 給 windflypig 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 15:44:41

就是亞洲人喜歡看,不過作為留學一個依據也可以 -zaocha2002- 給 zaocha2002 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 16:41:57

就是國人喜歡看, 安慰榜。 -Trader RM- 給 Trader RM 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 16:54:23

中國用錢收買這排名是一尊“講好中國故事”的大外宣工程裏最成功的範例,小錢辦大事,一本萬利。 -黑貓巡行- 給 黑貓巡行 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 16:56:22

不說英美的,QS對亞洲排名合理嗎 -青裁- 給 青裁 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 17:00:00

最不靠譜的排名,收錢辦事。 -blueRidge66- 給 blueRidge66 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 06/07/2024 postreply 17:14:25

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”