INTERUNIVERSITY HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY NETWORK

Study 3, 2012 English version

The Greek Higher Education Institutions in

the world rankings Universities, Technical Institutions, Private

Structure 2012

P A T R A S

HTTP://HEPNET.UPATRAS.GR Λ Η Κ Τ Ρ Ο Λ Ο Γ Η Σ Τ Ε Τ Η Δ Ι Ε Υ Θ Υ Ν Σ Η Τ Η Σ Ε Τ Α Ι Ρ Ε Ι Α Σ ]

2

Table of Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................ 3

Part One ......................................................................................................................... 5

Greek universities, institutes of technology and other educational structures in

international ranking lists ............................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5

1.1. Webometrics listing: What is it? What does it do? ............................................ 5

1.2. Greek education in webometrics.info ranking .................................................... 8

1.2.1. Greek universities on webometrics.info ........................................................ 13

1.2.2. Greek institutes of technology on webometrics.info ..................................... 15

1.2.3. Private education on webometrics.info .......................................................... 16

1.3. Provisional Conclusions.................................................................................... 17

Part Two ....................................................................................................................... 18

Making sense of the results or constructing a measure of comparison........................ 18

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 18

2.2. Greek GNP and the ranking of greek institutions ............................................. 19

2.3. Cost per student and the ranking of greek universities ..................................... 19

2.4. Constructing a comparison: the indicators ....................................................... 20

2.5. Constructing a comparison: the analysis.......................................................... 21

2.6. Constructing a comparison: paradoxical comparisons .................................... 23

2.7. Forming a perspective ....................................................................................... 26

3

Foreword

Whether or not one should concern oneself at all seriously with international ranking lists is

a controversial issue.

On the one hand, doing so legitimizes a debate which proves to be manifold as far as its

scientific adequacy and its seriousness are concerned. On the other hand, to ignore it leaves

the field open for political and communicational maneuverings with various objectives.

The truth is that a ranking is a ‘catchy’ journalistic subject which attracts the interest of the

public. This observation leads one inevitably to contemplate the reasons for such interest.

These reasons can be divided into ‘macro’ and ‘micro’.

The former concern international competition to attract foreign students, to the extent to

which this translates into a financial stake of growing importance. Beyond the short term

financial benefit for the duration of studies, however, the competition between the globe’s

largest states concerns long term and multilevel interests which have to do with political,

financial and cultural influence and prestige.

The latter are linked to two needs;

One is objective, the need for non-specialists to understand a specialized reality.

The ultimate goal is the rapid and effort-free updating of these non-specialists,

and the consequent taking of relevant decisions.

The other, in the spirit of popular culture, is rather more gossipy, and is

promoted by the mass media.

For the first, it would be worth examining the extent to which it reflects what can at times

be an agonizing question: what should we do? An understandable question. However, as

history has demonstrated, it cannot be answered, or at least not with a ‘recipe’ for action, or

an automated response.

The next question would have to do with whether a ranking list of all the institutions on a

global level would be feasible or not. In other words, if it would be possible to find all those

‘good’ criteria which would reflect the reality of each institution with credibility. This has yet

to be seen. What we do know is that, on the one hand, there do exist at least simplistic

rankings which nevertheless enjoy enormous international success, like the Shanghai list,

and on the other hand, an attempt is underway to create better and less simplistic rankings,

like that of OECD

4

http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.ht

ml) or that of the EU (http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news1103_en.htm).

As far as we are concerned, on the one hand we do not believe it is possible to create a

reliable ranking of all institutions. Something like that would mean firstly that all the

institutions being compared could be considered homogenous regarding their aims and

operation, and secondly that the societies and economies which these institutions address,

have the same needs. However, neither of these preconditions holds true. On the other

hand, there are signs that in the future more elaborate and complex rankings will make their

appearance. Consequently, we will need to learn to live with them so as to be able to

respond convincingly to the ensuing communicational and political dialogue with their

sweeping assessments of the stakes involved, at the centre of which is the competition to

attract foreign students, which reflects political, economic and cultural benefits for the

dominant receiving nations.

On the basis of the aforementioned, we were driven to the decision to publish this study.

Those words were written last year in the first edition of this study. This year (2012) we

have in addition the opportunity to make comparisons with the previous result (2011).

5

Part One

Greek universities, institutes of technology and other educational structures in international ranking lists

1. Introduction

The new framework law 4009/2011 for higher education supported the need for its

existence and laid the foundations for its legalization not so much in the development and

improvement of a satisfactory institution, but in the more generalized discrediting of the

greek public university. The argument over the incompetent and corrupt public university

has been reproduced and multiplied by the media.

As a result the question arises of whether the criticism that the greek public university

comes in for is well-founded or not. It should be stressed that the answer to this question is

not sought in order to silence the existing problems that the institution faces, or to question

the need for changes aimed at its progress and improvement. The value of this inquiry lies

in the documentation of the actual performance of greek higher education institutions and

in the attempt to find – even if it is only at an initial level – the causes of the tension which

has been created and which continues to exist between Ministry and universities on account

of the reasoning behind the substantiation of the necessity for a new law.

For this purpose, the ranking of world ranking universities (http://www.webometrics.info/)

will be used for the simple reason that it includes the ‘whole’ of the respective structures on

a worldwide level, a fact which could provide an overall picture of the situation (within the

context of the reasoning of a listing). In total, 20,372 institutions appear in this list.

1.1. Webometrics listing: What is it? What does it do?

Listings naturally raise questions and problems. This is why the first concern of their users,

and more so of those who compose and recommend them, is to show not so much that they

do not have weaknesses, but rather that they have fewer weaknesses than others. One of

these rankings is the world ranking universities (http://www.webometrics.info/) which has

in recent years been put forward by a team of Spanish researchers at the Cybermetrics

laboratory (a research team which belongs to the Spanish centre for scientific research

6

CSIS)1. According to its creators, this listing aims to break new ground in two ways. Firstly,

by taking into consideration not only work by researchers-university faculty published in

periodicals, but to measure the visibility of the institutions more generally. And secondly, by

extending as far as possible the number of institutions to be included in the listing.

In order to achieve the first objective, the Spanish researchers turn to the internet because it

‘takes into account the overall picture and performance of the universities’ ‘while it draws

attention to other activities of the professors and researchers’. The internet, they claim,

covers not only the official publications (e-journals, websites) but also the unofficial

academic type activity. In addition, it isn’t lacking in quality, it is accessible by the wider

public, an important fact especially for young scientists from less economically developed

countries.

The researchers use four indicators:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from Google (10%)

Visibility (V). The number of external links received (inlinks) multiplied by the referring

domins for these inlinks, according to Majestic SEO historical data (50%).

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and

considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe

Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps & .eps), Microsoft Word (.doc & .docx) and Microsoft

Powerpoint (.ppt & .pptx). These data were extracted using Google (10%).

Scholar (Sc). The data is a combination of items published between 2007 and 2011 included

in Google Scholar and the global output (2003-2010) obtained from Scimago SIR (30%)2.

In this way the Spanish researchers extended the number of educational institutions and

research centres to be included in their listing significantly. According to the researchers

themselves, the number of institutions ranked comes to 20,372 (2012), while in the

Shanghai list 3,000 universities are analyzed and 500 ranked.

As far as the weight of each factor is concerned, this information appears in Table 1 below.

1 The researchers set out their reasoning in a series of articles. Some examples:

2 The researchers also provide four clarifications in the form of end notes, which concern: 1.

Universities with 2 or more basic web domains are mentioned. 2. There is an attempt to minimise

institutions’ individual web domains, 3. Annexes with their own web domain, 4. Special circumstances.

More analytically: http://www.webometrics.info/notes.html.

7

It is clear that compared with other lists, especially that of Shanghai, the recommended

ranking is more ‘open’ as it incorporates texts beyond the conventional periodicals.

Nevertheless, even this listing isn’t without the usual problems. The four search engines

from which it draws its data favour texts in English, and Anglo-Saxon institutions, a fact

which in part explains their dominant position in the ranking.

This ‘inequality’ is less true for the sciences and technology where English has become a kind

of common language, a fact which makes it easier to compare the biographies – without

neglecting the institutional and material context of the production of the research work.

Things are more complex in the case of the humanities and social sciences which are more

closely connected to issues of culture, are aimed largely at a local public and aim to

‘educate’ public opinion and influence in one way or another the formation of national

policies. It is not at all uncommon in this case for texts and works which have had a marked

effect on a society to be considered insignificant when the yardstick for their evaluation is

references on the aforementioned search engines.

Table 1: Weight of each factor

Criteria WR (webometrics) Criteria ARWU

(‘Shanghai’ Ranking)

Institutions analysed

20,372

Institutions analysed

1,200

Institutions ranked

All

Institutions ranked

500

Criteria

Web Size 10% Quality of Education Alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals Alumni 10%

Rich files 10%

Quality of Faculty 1. Staff of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals

Award 20%

2. Researchers with high impact 20%

Scholar 30%

(Google)

Research output

1. Papers published in Nature and Science* N&S 20% 2. Papers indexed in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index PUB 20% 3. Per Capita Performance Per capita academic performance of an institution PCP 10%

Visibility 50%

8

Leaving these observations aside, let’s return to the latest (2012) webometrics ranking.

Table 2 gives us a picture of the educational and research institutions around the world. As

is to be expected, the dominance of North American (USA and Canada) and in general Anglo-

Saxon institutions is clear. In the top 100 it is difficult to find either non western countries or

European countries with less robust economies.

Table 2: World ranking educational and research institutions

1.2. Greek education in webometrics.info ranking

According to the latest edition of webometrics.info (2012), greek institutions present the

following picture. Let’s begin with the unexpected evidence: Private education is there, it is

evaluated and it is placed in the international rankings.

9

In this ranking, there are 64 institutions or structures (13 more than in 2011) of which: 23

are universities, 16 institutes of technology, 20 private structures, 2 military academies, 2

conservatories and 1 ‘other’3.

Based on the evidence of Table 1, one can discern that:

For the universities

A. The first 30 places are occupied by public institutions of tertiary education.

B. In the first 15 places there are only public universities.

C. Five (5) universities (the Aristotelian University of Thessalonica, Patras, the National

and Kapodistrian University of Athens, The National Technical University of Athens,

Crete) are in the top 3% of the world ranking. In fact, the A.U. Thessalonica is in the

top 1%.

D. A further three (3) universities (Ioannina, Aegean and Democritus) are in the top 5%

of the world ranking.

E. Another six (6) greek public universities (Thessaly, Athens University of Economics,

Crete Polytechnic, Macedonia, Piraeus, and Agricultural) are in the top 10% of the

world ranking.

F. Between 2011 and 2012, 18 out of the 23 greek public universities improved their

placing in the world ranking. In a number of instances in fact, this improvement was

impressive.

For the institutes of technology4

A. The top institute of technology in the world ranking is that of Crete (position 2,316).

B. Four (4) institutes of technology (Crete, Athens, Thessalonica and Larissa) are

amongst the top 10 – 15% of the world ranking.

C. Five (5) more institutes of technology (Kavala, Piraeus, Messolonghi, Kozani and

Serres) are placed between 15 and 20%.

D. The top two (2) institutes of technology (Crete and Athens) are placed above eight

(8) universities.

For the Private institutions

A. No private institution is to be found in the top ¼ of the world ranking.

3 The National and Kapodistrian University of Athens medical School is referred to in category 3 of the

four observations of the Spanish researchers (previous footnote). 4 The equivalent of Polytechnics.

10

B. Only three (3) are to be found between the top ¼ and 1/3 of the world ranking.

There follows an analysis of table 1 according to type of institution - universities, institutes of

technology and institutions of private education.

Table 3: World Ranking Greek Institutions

Table 3: World Ranking Greek Institutions (2012)

World

ranking 2011

World ranking

2012

Placing fluctuation

Type/level of institution

Absolute % in

world ranking

Grouping

1 Aristotelian University of Thessalonica

158 407 249 University 0,78

0-3%

2 University of Patras

327 685 358 University 1,61

3

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

351 430 79 University 1,72

4 National Technical University of Athens 369 340 -29 University 1,81

5 University of Crete

516 631 115 University 2,53

6 University of Ioannina

731 1047 316 University 3,59

3-5% 7

University of the Aegean

865 920 55 University 4,25

8 Democritus University of Thrace 867 1306 439 University 4,26

9 University of Thessaly

1041 1639 598 University 5,11

5-10%

10

Athens University of Economics 1043 1151 108 University 5,12

11 Crete Polytechnic

1125 1904 779 University 5,52

12 University of Macedonia

1263 978 -285 University 6,20

13 University of Piraeus 1379 1745 366 University 6,77

14 Agricultural University of Athens 1382 2179 797 University 6,78

11

15 University of the Peloponnese 2214 2648 434 University 10,87

10-15%

16 Crete Institute of Technology 2316 2768 452 Polytechnic 11,37

17 Athens Institute of Technology 2329 2436 107 Polytechnic 11,43

18 Greek Open University 2560 2652 92 University 12,57

19 Harokopio University

2584 4316 1732 University 12,68

20 Ionian University 2637 2060 -577 University 12,94

21 University of Western Macedonia 2780 4094 1314 University 13,65

22 Thessalonica Institute of Technology

2951 1809 -1142 Polytechnic 14,49

23 Larissa Institute of Technology 2973 2183 -790 Polytechnic 14,59

24 Kavala Institute of Technology 3098 3852 754 Polytechnic 15,21

15-20%

25 Piraeus Institute of Technology 3237 2970 -267 Polytechnic 15,89

26 Messolonghi Institute of Technology

3635 4557 922 Polytechnic 17,84

27 Kozani Institute of Technology 3738 2505 -1233 Polytechnic 18,35

28 Serres Institute of Technology 3929 3111 -818 Polytechnic 19,29

29

Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences

4020 3403 -617 University 19,73

30 Patras Institute of Technology 4899 3530 -1369 Polytechnic 24,05 20-25%

31

American School of Classical studies at Athens

5610 7144 1534 Private

Institution 27,54

25-33%

32 Epirus Institute of Technology 5915 4368 -1547 Polytechnic 29,03

12

33 American farm school Thessalonica 6104 9801 3697

Private Institution

29,96

34 Alba Graduate Business School 6351 7487 1136

Private Institution

31,18

35 Athens Information Technology 7299 8402 1103

Private Institution

35,83

36 Athens School of Arts

7374 6809 -565 Polytechnic 36,20

37 University of Central Greece 7695 9371 1676 University 37,77

38 Halkida Institute of Technology 7723 5893 -1830 Polytechnic 37,91

39 Greek International University 8054 9810 1756 University 39,53

40 Lamia Institute of Technology 8110 5797 -2313 Polytechnic 39,81

41 Hellenic Army academy 8407 7162 -1245

Military Academy

41,27

42 American College of Greece 9101 11835 2734

Private Institution

44,67

43

School of Pedagogical and Technological Education

9367 8541 -826 Polytechnic 45,98

44 New York College

9555 9206 -349 Private

Institution 46,90

45 American College of Thessalonica 9803 9076 -727

Private Institution

48,12

46 Ionian Island Institute of Technology

10839 8001 -2838 Polytechnic 53,21

47 Kalamata Institute of Technology 11076 10818 -258 Polytechnic 54,37

48 City University Athens 11310 χχχ

Private Institution

55,52

49 College Year in Athens 11755 χχχ

Private Institution

57,70

50 IST College

11854 χχχ Private

Institution 58,19

13

51 University of Indianapolis Athens 12222 10093 -2129

Private Institution

59,99

52 Alpine Centre for hotel and Tourism Management

12408 χχχ Private

Institution 60,91

53 Athens School of Management 12504 χχχ

Private Institution

61,38

54 Bca Business Studies

12768 χχχ Private

Institution 62,67

55 Akto Art and Design

12936 χχχ Private

Institution 63,50

56

City College International Faculty of the University of Sheffield

13544 χχχ Private

Institution 66,48

57 Hellenic Naval Academy 13923 11444 -2479

Military Academy

68,34

58 ICBS Business School

13960 χχχ Private

Institution 68,53

59 State Conservatory of Thessaloniki 14027 χχχ Conservatory 68,85

60

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical school

14201 χχχ

University structure

with idependent

server

69,71

61 Hellenic American University 14648 χχχ

Private Institution

71,90

62 American University of Athens 14681 χχχ

Private Institution

72,06

63 Conservatoire of Northern Greece 17783 χχχ Conservatory 87,29

64 Didacta Educational Group 18967 χχχ

Private Institution

93,10

1.2.1. Greek universities on webometrics.info

A more detailed analysis reveals that;

A. Some greek public universities are ranked among the world’s elite universities.

B. The majority (14 out of 23) are among the top 10% in the world ranking.

14

C. With the exception of the last three (3), the others are in the top 1/5 of the world

ranking.

D. Over the last year, the vast majority of the greek public universities (18 out of 23)

improved their world placing, often in an impressive manner.

Table 3a: World Ranking Greek Public Universities (2012)

Pos i tion in

relation to

a l l Greek

univers i ties

Ultimate

pos i tion in

relation to a l l

Greek

insti tutions

Univers i ty World

ranking

2012

World

ranking

2011

Placing

fluctuation

Absolute

% in world

ranking

% grouping

1 1A.U. Thessalonica

158 407 249 0,78

2 2 University of Patras 327 685 358 1,61

3 3National and Kapodistrian

University of Athens 351 430 79 1,72

4 4National Technical

University of Athens369 340 -29 1,81

5 5 University of Crete 516 631 115 2,53

6 6 University of Ioannina 731 1047 316 3,59

7 7 University of the Aegean 865 920 55 4,25

8 8Democritus University of

Thrace 867 1306 439 4,26

9 9University of Thessaly

1041 1639 598 5,11

10 10Athens University of

Economics1043 1151 108 5,12

11 11 The Polytechnic of Crete 1125 1904 779 5,52

12 12 University of Macedonia 1263 978 -285 6,20

13 13 University of Piraeus 1379 1745 366 6,77

14 14Agricultural University of

Athens1382 2179 797 6,78

15 15University of the

Peloponnese2214 2648 434 10,87

16 18The Greek Open University

2560 2652 92 12,57

17 19The Harokopio University of

Athens 2584 4316 1732 12,68

18 20 Ionian University 2637 2060 -577 12,94

19 21The University of Western

Macedonia2780 4094 1314 13,65

20 29

The Panteion University of

Social and Political

Sciences4020 3403 -617 19,73 15-20%

21 36Athens School of Arts

7374 6809 -565 36,20

22 37University of Central

Greece 7695 9371 1676 37,77

23 39Greek International

University8054 9810 1756 39,53

35-40%

Table 3α: World Ranking Greek Public Universities (2012)

0-3%

3-5%

5-10%

10-15%

15

1.2.2. Greek institutes of technology on webometrics.info

A more detailed analysis of the data reveals that:

A. Four (4) Institutes of Technology are between the top 10 and 15% in the world

ranking.

B. A further five (5) are between the top 15 – 20 % in the world ranking.

C. In contrast with the universities, the vast majority of institutes of technology (12 out

of 16) worsened their placing in the world ranking. The exceptions were the

institutes of technology in Crete, Athens, Kavala and Messolonghi.

Table 3b: World Ranking Greek Public Institutes of technology (2012)

Pos i tion in

relation to

a l l Greek

univers i ties

Ultimate

pos i tion in

relation to

a l l Greek

insti tutions

Insti tutes of

Technology

World

ranking

2012

World

ranking

2011

Placing

fluctuation

Absolute

% in world

ranking

%

grouping

1 16Crete Institute of

Technology 2316 2768 452 11,37

2 17Athens Institute of

Technology2329 2436 107 11,43

3 22

Thessalonica

Institute of

Technology

2951 1809 -1142 14,49

4 23Larissa Institute of

Technology 2973 2183 -790 14,59

5 24Kavala Institute of

Technology3098 3852 754 15,21

6 25Piraeus Institute of

Technology3237 2970 -267 15,89

7 26

Messolonghi

Institute of

Technology

3635 4557 922 17,84

8 27Kozani Institute of

Technology3738 2505 -1233 18,35

9 28Serres Institute of

Technology3929 3111 -818 19,29

10 30Patras Institute of

Technology4899 3530 -1369 24,05 20-25%

11 32Epirus Institute of

Technology5915 4368 -1547 29,03 25-33%

12 38Halkida Institute of

Technology7723 5893 -1830 37,91

13 40Lamia Institute of

Technolgy8110 5797 -2313 39,81

14 43

School of

Pedagogical and

Technical

Education

9367 8541 -826 45,98

15 46

Ionian Islands

Institute of

Technology

10839 8001 -2838 53,21

16 47Kalamata Institute

of Technology11076 10818 -258 54,37

Table 3b: World Ranking Greek Public Institutes of Technology (2012)

10-14%

15-20%

35-45%

45-55%

16

1.2.3. Private education on webometrics.info

As far as Greek private education is concerned, a more detailed analysis reveals that:

1. It is placed particularly low in the world ranking.

2. Only three (3) of the institutions are to be found between the top ¼ and 1/3 of the

world ranking.

3. Of the 20 institutions which appear in the world ranking of 2012 only eight (8) were

in the corresponding ranking for 2011. However, the top five (5) of those improved

their placing5.

Table 3c: World Ranking Private Education Institutions

Pos i tion in

relation to

a l l Greek

univers i ties

Ultimate

pos i tion in

relation to

a l l Greek

insti tutions

Private Insti tutions World

ranking

2012

World

ranking

2011

Placing

fluctuation

Absolute

% in world

ranking

% grouping

1 31

The American

School of Classical

Studies at Athens

5610 7144 1534 27,54

2 33

American Farm

School

Thessaloniki

6104 9801 3697 29,96

3 34Alba Graduate

Business School6351 7487 1136 31,18

4 35

Athens

Information

Technology

7299 8402 1103 35,83

5 42American College

of Greece9101 11835 2734 44,67

6 44 New York College 9555 9206 -349 46,90

7 45American College

of Thessaloniki9803 9076 -727 48,12

8 48City University

Athens11310 χχχ 55,52

9 49College Year in

Athens11755 χχχ 57,70

10 50 IST College 11854 χχχ 58,19

11 51

University of

Indianapolis

Athens

12222 10093 -2129 59,99

12 52

Alpine Center for

Hotel and Tourism

Management

12408 χχχ 60,91

13 53Athens School of

Management12504 χχχ 61,38

14 54Bca Business

Studies12768 χχχ 62,67

15 55 Akto Art & Design 12936 χχχ 63,50

16 56

City College

International

Faculty of the

University of

Sheffield

13544 χχχ 66,48

17 58ICBS Business

School13960 χχχ 68,53

18 61Hellenic American

University14648 χχχ 71,90

19 62

American

University of

Athens

14681 χχχ 72,06

20 64Didacta

Educational Group18967 χχχ 93,10 las t 10%

65-75%

Table 3c: World Ranking Greek Private Institutions (2012)

25%-33%

35-45%

45-55%

55-65%

5 The private structure Athens Information Technology and American College of Greece are referred to

in note 1 of the four notes of the Spanish researchers.

17

1.3. Provisional Conclusions

Based on the world ranking data it would appear that neither the mass attack on greek

higher education, nor the biting criticism of the media are grounded on sound evidence. By

extension, it would not appear that the need for a new law regarding the poor quality of

services provided by the public higher education institutions can be substantiated.

In fact, based on a comparison of the 2012 world ranking with that of 2011, one notices that

the majority of greek universities improved their ranking, and in a number of instances, did

so spectacularly.

This, on the one hand cannot be down to the new law which has not yet come into force,

and on the other hand, it needs to be examined in conjunction with the drastic reduction in

state funding over the same period. It should, in other words, be stressed that the observed

improvement took place in extremely difficult financial circumstances.

Of course, it should be noted that a number of institutions, especially, though not

exclusively, institutes of technology, seem to have been affected by the financial difficulties.

In other words, the gap appears to be widening between the more dynamic and powerful

institutions and the weaker ones.

If this is linked to the overall structural problem of the greek education system, the lack of a

‘bottom limit’ then one can ponder the consequences of the worsening of the performance

of the now weakened institutions.

Finally, this particular world ranking substantiates the view that there exists a strange

relationship between greek society and the legislative framework it functions within. Private

institutions exist, and are beginning to be noticed overseas and are evaluated despite

constitutional and other bans. At the base of this evaluation the view that these are low

level educational structures is substantiated, and in every case they have a much worse

ranking than the public higher education institutions.

18

Part Two

Making sense of the results or constructing a measure of comparison

2.1. Introduction

One could claim that the data so far presented are disappointing for greek institutions to the

extent that not one of the institutions is in the top 100, and only one (1) is among the top

300.

What then is to be the measure of comparison? In other words, How are we to understand

the position of the greek institutions?

The question is serious and requires examination.

The desire to be first, or at least among the first, to not be satisfied with the best 3 or 5 or

10% in the world, to want to be in the 1% is an indication of a purpose and a desire entirely

worthy of respect. However, to move from the desire, to its realization requires strategic

planning, and consequently a rational approach to many separate issues. The evaluation of

a position within a ranking therefore requires some rational kinds of criteria. What could

these be?

Let’s say that one interesting indicator would be a comparison between the position of an

institution and the corresponding position of Greece in terms of its gross national product,

to the extent that the University is directly linked to the market, its development and its

needs. In other words a (‘good’) university does no more than reflect its social context and

the needs (or the development) of the economy within the framework of which it operates.

A second indicator would be the comparison of the position of an institution with the

expenditure per student, to the extent to which this comparison helps us comprehend the

quality of the educational provision, as much at the level of infrastructure, as at the level of

staff competency.

Let’s take a look at the data.

19

2.2. Greek GNP and the ranking of greek institutions

According to international data Greece is to be found:

According to the International Monetary Fund (data from 2010) in the 32nd

position globally, out of a total of 183 nations (or, in the top 18% of the world)

According to the World Bank (data from 2010) in the 32nd position globally out of

a total of 190 nations (or, in the top 17%)

According to the CIA World Fact book (data from 2011) in the 34th position

globally, out of a total of 190 nations (or, in the top 18%)

(source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Based on this data, one could advance towards the initial evaluation that greek institutions

which are to be found in the top 15 to 20 % of the world ranking institutions reflect the

position of the country in the world ranking based on its GNP. In contrast, on the one hand,

the institutions which are ranked in the top 15% have achieved a better ranking in relation

to the country’s ranking, while on the other hand, institutions placed higher than the top

20% have achieved a worse ranking.

2.3. Cost per student and the ranking of greek universities

A second reliable indicator for comparison could be cost per student. In a search for data for

this index, one discerns that Greece has ceased to send data to the big international

organizations. Hence, in the most recent publications of OECD6 and UNESCO7 there are no

data for Greece. To find data for Greece, one must go back to 2004, to the publications of

OECD8. Based then on the data available for 2004 one discovers that Greece occupies the

last place but one (out of a total of 30 countries, with Poland in last place)9, with 4,843 euro

per student (as a whole of tertiary education). The average for OECD countries, according to

the particular table was 9,613 euro per student. Consequently, greek funding amounted to

50,4% of the average spending of OECD countries.

6 Regards sur l’education 2011 : Les indicateurs de l’OCDE, http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3746,fr_2649_39263238_48645475_1_1_1_1,00.html

7 GLOBAL EDUCATION DIGEST 2011 Comparing Education Statistics Across the World http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/global_education_digest_2011_en.pdf

8 OCDE, 2007, Regards sur l’Education 2007 les indicateurs de l’OCDE, Paris, p. 456. 9 In the relevant table three countries do not have data (Canada, Luxembourg and Turkey).

20

Of course, one could claim that this ranking concerns the most developed countries of the

world and therefore overemphasizes greek under-funding. This is indeed likely; however, if

one supports this idea then it is highly irrational to expect any improvement in Greece’s

position in the world ranking of higher education institutions.

2.4. Constructing a comparison: the indicators

So far, the greek situation has been examined as it is portrayed through a series of data.

There will follow an attempt to make comparisons. The question once again lies in the issue

of what criteria are to be employed for the choice of countries to be compared to Greece.

Considering a central criterion to be the development of the economy as this is seen in that

country’s GNP, we start with that. Hence, we initially isolated three European countries with

a slightly greater GNP than Greece, and three with a relatively lower GNP. Let’s see which

these countries are:

Table 4: EU member nations or EU affiliated European countries with GNP comparative to

Greece

Countries IMF position (2010) World Bank position (2010) CIA position (2011)

Norway 25 24 26

Austria 27 26 28

Denmark 31 31 31

Greece 32 32 34

Finland 36 35 36

Portugal 38 37 42

Ireland 42 41 44

In the three international rankings presented in table 2, Greece occupies 32nd place (in the

IMF and World Bank rankings) and 34th place in the CIA ranking.

The three European countries nearest to Greece, with a greater GNP are Norway, Austria

and Denmark.

On the other hand, the three European countries nearest to Greece with a lower GNP are

Finland, Portugal and Ireland.

21

Based on the evidence in table 5 it appears that all of the European countries with either a

comparatively greater or comparatively lower GNP than Greece reveal funding per student

which is between 38.41% (Portugal) and 168.16% (Norway) greater than the corresponding

greek funding.

Table 5: Expenditure per student (2004)

Countries Expenditure per student

(2004)

Expenditure as % of corresponding greek

expenditure (2004)

Norway 12,987 268,16

Austria 12,089 180,35

Denmark 13,185 272,25

Greece 4,843 100,00

Finland 10,829 223,60

Portugal 6,703 138,41

Ireland 8,843 182,59

2.5. Constructing a comparison: the analysis

Based on the data, one can now form a substantiated comparison between, on the one

hand, Greece, and, on the other, the nearest European countries (3 with a greater GNP, 3

with a smaller GNP).

Table 6: World ranking of institutions from European countries with GNP close to the

greek GNP

Countries Total

number of

institutions

Top 1% % of total

number of

institutions

Top 1-

3%

Top 3-

5%

Top 5-

10%

Total

number

in top

10%

% of total

number of

institutions

Top 10-

15%

Top 15-

20%

Top 20-

25%

Top 25-

33%

Total in

top 1/3

% of total

number of

institutions

Norway 66 2 3,0 2 0 3 10 15,2 9 7 5 10 41 62,2

Austria 77 3 3,9 3 3 6 19 24,5 3 4 11 8 45 58,3

Denmark 91 2 2,2 3 2 1 10 11,2 2 1 2 7 22 24,4

Greece 64 1 1,6 4 3 6 16 24,3 9 6 1 4 36 55,6

Finland 49 1 2,0 5 1 3 12 24,6 5 12 3 7 39 79,7

Portugal 111 2 1,8 5 5 7 21 18,7 11 2 1 8 43 38,6

Ireland 49 0 0,0 4 3 2 9 18,4 2 2 5 4 22 44,9

Table 6b: World ranking of institutions from European countries with GNP close to the Greek GNP

22

Based on the data in table 6, one discovers that:

A. In this particular world ranking, the seven (7) countries reveal great diversity in the

number of institutions. The fewest universities, 49, are to be found in Finland and Ireland,

and the most, 111, are recorded in Portugal. With 64 institutions, Greece occupies 5th place

out of the seven countries.

B. In the top 1% of the world ranking, 6 out of the 7 countries have at least one

institution. Ireland comprises the exception.

C. Austria has the most institutions, three (3). Greece has one (1) institution, as does

Finland.

D. In the top 10% the data reveal marked variations. In essence, three groupings can

be discerned. In the first, are Finland (24.6%), Austria (24.5%) and Greece (24.3%). In other

words, these three countries have ¼ of their institutions in the top 10% of the world ranking.

In the second grouping one finds Portugal (18.7%) and Ireland (18.4%). In the third are

Norway (15.25%) and Denmark with just over 1/10 (11.2%) of its institutions in the top 10%

of the world ranking.

E. Finally, in the top 1/3 of the world ranking, the differentiation of these particular

nations becomes more marked. At the one extreme is Finland, with almost 80% (79.7%) of

its institutions in this category, and at the other extreme one finds Denmark, with only ¼

(24.4%) of its institutions.

F. Greece (55.6%), together with Norway (62.2%) and Austria (58.3%) are the other

three countries which have the majority of their institutions in the top 1/3 of the world

ranking.

Next and for a fuller analysis, table 6b is presented, which compares the results from 2011

and 2012.

Table 6b: World ranking of institutions from European countries with GNP close to the

greek GNP

Countries Top

1%

2011

Top

1%

2012

Difference Top

10%

2011

Top

10%

2012

Difference Top

33%

2011

Top

33%

2012

Difference

Norway 3,6 3,0 xxx 10,9 15,2 39,3 45,6 62,2 36,6

Austria 0,0 3,9 xxx 13,6 24,5 79,6 30,3 58,3 92,4

23

Denmark 1,7 2,2 xxx 13,3 11,2 -16,0 21,7 24,4 12,6

Greece 0,0 1,6 xxx 18,0 24,3 35,0 54,0 55,6 3,0

Finland 2,0 2,0 xxx 18,0 24,6 36,7 48,0 79,7 66,4

Portugal 0,0 1,8 xxx 17,3 18,7 7,9 44,0 38,6 -12,3

Ireland 0,0 0,0 xxx 21,6 18,4 -14,9 32,4 44,9 38,5

Based on the evidence in table 6b:

A. While in 2011 only Norway and Denmark had institutions in the top 1% of the world

ranking, in 2012, Austria, Finland, Portugal and Greece were added.

B. In the top 10%, two (2) countries, Denmark and Ireland see their percentage drop.

In contrast, the other countries increased their percentages from impressively

(Austria, 79.6%) to slightly (Portugal, 7.9%). Greece increased its percentage by

35%.

C. In the top 33%, with the exception of Portugal, the other countries increased their

percentages. At the one extreme, Austria almost doubled the number of institutions

in this category (92.4%) and at the other extreme is Greece with 3%.

Based on the analysis we put forward, one can claim that greek institutions, and indeed

public institutions, are by no means inferior to those of other European countries with GNP

similar to the greek GNP. Even better, the public institutions are to be found in a very

satisfactory position.

Indeed, if these particular results are compared with the economic data in table 5, then one

could argue that the greek public institutions achieve this particular ranking despite starting

from an extremely difficult economic situation.

2.6. Constructing a comparison: paradoxical comparisons

Despite this, the greek institutions, mainly the universities, are under extremely great

pressure and face powerful criticism. Therefore, to be able to understand this situation one

must, first of all, make a paradoxical comparison. To compare the greek institutions with

corresponding institutions in the most powerful countries in Europe and the world. We will

now move on to just such a comparison. Greece will be compared with the following

countries : the USA, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain.

24

Table 7: The major European nations, the USA and Greece, based on their GNP

Countries IMF position (2010) World Bank position (2010) CIA position (2011)

USA 1 1 1

Germany 4 4 4

France 5 5 5

United Kingdom 6 6 7

Italy 8 8 8

Spain 12 12 12

Greece 32 32 34

At the same time, the following table (7b) provides data for expenditure per student for the

nations in question.

Table 7b: Expenditure per student (2004)

Countries Expenditure

per student

(2004)

Expenditure as a % of corresponding greek

expenditure (2004)

USA 19,464 401,90

Germany 10,613 219,14

France 9,238 190,75

United Kingdom 7,614 157,22

Italy 6,688 138,10

Spain 8,121 167,69

Greece 4,843 100,00

Based on the evidence in table 7b, all the countries present expenditure per student from

38.10% (Italy) to 301.90% (USA) greater than Greece.

The following table provides information with the analytical ranking of the higher education

institutions of the particular nations.

25

Table 8: World ranking of institutions from European countries with GNP close to the

Greek GNP

Countries Total

number of

institutions

Top

1%

% of

institutions

Top 1-

3%

Top 3-

5%

Top 5-

10%

Total in

top 10%

% of

institutions

Top 10-

15%

Top 15-

20%

Top 20-

25%

Top 25-

33%

Total in

top 1/3

% of

institutions

USA 3.277 87 2,7 93 76 181 437 13,3 353 316 291 450 1847 56,4

Germany 409 15 3,7 36 11 16 78 19,1 60 24 23 31 216 52,8

France 619 0 0,0 11 28 62 101 16,3 23 23 17 42 206 33,3

United Kingdom 241 8 3,3 30 29 31 98 40,7 16 16 10 21 161 66,8

Italy 211 7 3,3 15 18 22 62 29,4 6 2 4 13 87 41,2

Spain 237 5 2,1 25 14 10 54 22,8 5 8 11 12 90 38,0

Greece 64 1 1,6 4 3 6 16 24,3 9 6 1 4 36 55,6

Table 8: World ranking of institutions from European countries with GNP close to the Greek GNP

Based on the data in table 8:

A. The dominance of the USA is evident in the number of institutions (3,277) and in the

number of institutions in the top 1% of the world ranking (87 out of a total of 204, or

43%). Despite this though, the proportion of the total number of institutions is not

high. In fact, as far as the proportion is concerned, Germany, the United Kingdom

and Italy surpass the United States. Finally, it is surprising that no French university

is included in this percentage.

B. In the top 10% the picture is highly differentiated. Here, the United Kingdom has by

far the best place, with 40.7%. In second place is Italy, with 29.4%, while surprisingly

Greece is in third place. In contrast the USA is in last place with just 13.3% of its

institutions.

C. In the top 33%, the situation is again differentiated. While the United Kingdom is

first with 66.8% of its institutions, in the next two places are the United States

(56.4%) and Greece (55.6%).

Consequently, one can see that within the context of this paradoxical comparison, greek

institutions – and indeed greek public higher education institutions – are by no means

inferior to those of the major European nations, or the USA. Of course, this comparison

does not take into account either the numerical dominance of the American institutions in

the world elite institutions (1%), or the marked presence of the United Kingdom’s

institutions across the whole spectrum of the top 10%.

If within what is in any case a borderline comparison, the economic data from table 7b are

also included, then one could argue that greek public higher education institutions achieve

this particular ranking despite starting economically from a manifestly difficult position.

26

Based on the previous data, one wonders why there is so much negative criticism of greek

universities?

2.7. Forming a perspective

It is clear that the data presented hold surprises. The issue is to understand the data with

the objective on the one hand of substantiating different models, and, on the other hand, of

forming suitable strategies for greek public institutions.

The basic question remains: why is a ranking compiled and what kind of quality is being

promoted?

There are at least three interpretations:

Firstly, if the objective is the promotion of excellence, then the only percentile that has any

significance is the top 1%, while the top 20,25 or 33% have no meaning. Hence, for example,

the USA, having 87 institutions in the top 204 in the world (the elite 1%), becomes a model

and dominant centre of excellence, a fact which is consistent as much with the needs of its

economy (first GNP in the world) as it is with the objectives that befit the most powerful

nation on the planet. Despite that though, this particular model appears to hide huge

internal inequalities. Indeed, based on the data from the ranking, a large number of the

many American institutions are ranked low to very low.

Secondly, if the objective is not only elitist and the target focuses on the education of a

wider elite which goes beyond the national context, then the attestation of the top 10%

suddenly has meaning ( to the extent to which globalization can serve the needs of the

particular nation). In this case, the USA ceases to be a model, with just 13.3% of its

institutions in the top 10% in the world. In contrast, the United Kingdom, with 40% of its

institutions in the top 10% appears to be the most credible. In this way, global attention to

its higher education system is assured and it is transformed into an interesting pole of

attraction for students from all over the planet.

Thirdly, for countries with a limited GNP, and hence with limited opportunities for their

economies and with comparatively low higher education funding, the issue could be the

diffusion of as much existing knowledge as possible and the satisfactory education of a

significant part of their population. In this case, inclusion in the top 1/3 of the world ranking

could have powerful meaning. In this interpretation, the case of Greece could be worth

attention as much for countries with a similar GNP as for the most powerful countries in the

world.

27

It would be interesting to investigate what would happen if in countries like Greece higher

education were to over-perform in relation to the existing operation of its economy and its

needs. Two pieces of evidence will be given:

Firstly, within the context of ongoing research on the subject of Interdisciplinarity

in the university10, a professor on the postgraduate programme ‘The Science and Technology

of Polymers’ in which the Departments of Material Science, Physics, Chemistry and Chemical

Engineering participate, mentions in an interview: “They (our students) should have better

luck, but there are no companies in Greece, there aren’t any…most (students) chase nothing

post-doc, and even then, after that they finish after a few years.[…], but from what I’ve seen

(in industry) most of them are told that they are over-qualified. They have more

qualifications than are needed and they want to employ them on a basic salary and stuff like

that”.

Secondly, and as an outcome of the first, what happens next is for Greece to (re)live a wave

of foreign emigration on the part of ‘over-qualified’ young adults11 which is evident as much

from research as it is from the press (especially from the press). Of course from a

humanistic, global point of view, the flight in question is not a major problem. On the

contrary, from a pragmatist point of view, the great global economies benefit from this

flight, since, at no cost to themselves they exploit the investment Greece made in its young

generation. Of course, one could claim that this is due to the country’s failure to wed the

needs of the economy to educational provision. This accusation is not ungrounded.

However, it should be admitted too that this failure is also due to the pressure Greece (or

countries like Greece) is under through multiple ‘harmonizing’ or ‘coordinating’ procedures

which are expressed by the systems of one, unified and linear evaluation on either a

European level (for example, the Bologna Procedure, the ENQA methodology) or on a global

level (for example the world ranking list presented in this work, or the Shanghai list, or the

Times list, and so on).

In essence, these exemplary interpretations are no more than a sign of what the specialized

bibliography tells us: that the concept of quality in higher education is a very ‘relative

concept’12. In fact, these writers, in their analysis of the relationship between quality and

the models for higher education define four different aspects of the concept of quality:

10

A study of the production processes of scientific-academic knowledge: from monodisciplinarity to

the interdisciplinarity of university studies, Karatheodori Programme, University of Patras, (2010-

2012). 11

Lambranidis, L., 2011. Investing in flight: the drain of scientists from Greece in the age of

globalization. 12

Harvey L., Green D. (1993). “Defining quality”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,

18(1):9-34.

28

Quality as excellence, Quality as fitness for purpose, Quality as value for money and Quality

as transformation.

Consequently, on a strategic level, every country has to choose between two models, with

potentially an infinite number of variations in between. At the one extreme, an ‘excellence’

model and at the other, a ‘systemic approach’ model. In the first, the reasoning is simply

that ‘being first is everything while coming second is worth nothing’. Or, to put it differently,

weight is given to the creation of and support of institutions-centres of excellence, while the

internal cohesion of the higher education system is marginalized, or, worse still, the very

existence of the system itself is thrown into doubt and there is talk of (reduced) educational

structures. In the second model, the reasoning rests on the assuring of a satisfactory middle

level, where there is not a great distance between extreme values, and interventions would

concern the whole system and not just particular units. Hence, the political and journalistic

rhetoric which suspects both (high participation in excellence, but also a high systemic level)

accurately expresses the request. The data however from the rankings and comparisons

between crucial dimensions for the assessment of university results, reveal that

internationally there is a weakness as far as achieving both objectives at the same time is

concerned.

Whether one refers to the work of Harvey and Green or to the two different models, the

first thing that one should accept is that there is no point in a blanket world listing! There

should be at least as many as there are potential categorizations of quality13. In essence,

here once again, and in a way which indicates a historical inconsistency there arises the

question of whether global development (and at the level of education) can be placed on a

vertical line where at the top we find the more advanced nations, and at the bottom the

more slow moving ones. In other words, we come back to the argument of Theodore W.

Schultz and his ideas regarding the economic value of education14. And yet, we were under

the impression that the criticism that this theory came in for, from the end of the ‘60’s and

on, had led to its ultimate rejection. Today, however, we see it dominant. The truth is that

this theory includes ideas which are linked to particular countries for which it is multiply

13

Without referring to the various paradoxes of ranking lists, such as: a)in essence lists like the

Shanghai list do not measure anything other than the size of the institution, b) in these kinds of lists,

Anglophone institutions receive privileged treatment (and the English language publications of its

members), so consequently what counts is not so much the quality of the institution but the (taken for

granted) dominance of the English language, c)an institution with a medical school has de facto a better

position than another which does not have a medical school, but rather humanities, for the simple

reason that Medicine has a lot of publications, etc. 14

Schultz Th. W., 1972, The economic value of education, ed. Papazisis, Athens.

29

profitable. On the other hand, it is clear that this is a theory deeply influenced by social

Darwinism.

In conclusion, one could ask: but is the reality of greek higher education really so good that

no changes are required?

The answer has many levels.

The nature of the comparison must be defined. In essence this reveals either the

non-existence of national choice, or the abandonment of the current model, if

one admits that there is some such thing, and the adoption of a new one

together with a choice of suitable new criteria

Improvement is both desired and perpetual, but is linked to certain prerequisites

which are tied up with the economic context

It is obvious that the needs for change of the institutions in the top 5 or 10% are

different from the needs of those which occupy the last places

Finally, the documented statement ‘bottom limit’ is judged to be of major

significance.