"UP did not participate in THES-QS University Rankings"

That's the new article entry that stumbled upon me at the UP system and UPLB website this midnight. It's pretty hilarious that Ateneo de Manila University really took this THES-QS survey seriously. Just check their (Ateneo) profile at Top Universities. At least, their effort paved way as they surpassed UP--that is, according to this measly ranking. It's best for President Emerlinda Roman to disregard the THES-QS since many universities, most of them also included in their list, imposed questions and found conclusions that clearly sees the incompetence of their methodologies. Should we say that this thing is of low-profile and of disservice to what this survey wants? I guess so. More to that "I guess", I guess it's better for you to read two of the articles posted at the special features section of the UP system website.

 

Only two RP universities made it to the world’s 500 best; but must the rankings be taken seriously?

Sunday, August 3, 2008
Alicor L. Panao

No doubt everyone wants to score well in a beauty contest for academic institutions. But should a university’s worth be judged on reputation alone?

In the recently released 2007 Times Higher Education survey only two Philippine universities made it to its list of the world’s top 500. The University of the Philippines, the national university, was ranked at 398, about a hundred notches down from its 2006 rank of 299. Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University came in at 451. The University of Santo Tomas and the De La Salle University, which were both included in the 2006 list, dropped from the radar.

It did not take long for the media reports to elicit reactions from academicians, policymakers and alumni. Journalists and columnists pitched their own speculations as to what has been dragging down the country’s universities. However, the question that was not being asked was: what was the basis of the ranking?

Published by The Times Higher Education Supplement in collaboration with Quacquarelli Symonds (THES-QS), the rankings are meant supposedly to serve as “the definitive guide to universities around the world which truly excel.” In evaluating institutions, however, the THES-QS computes half of the index based on its reputation as perceived by academics (peer review, 40%) and global employers (recruiter review, 10%). Since it is not specified who were surveyed or what questions were asked, the methodology is obviously vulnerable to manipulation.

Even peers need some standardized input data to review. But according to the October 2007 study International Ranking Systems for Universities and Institutions: A Critical Appraisal published in BioMed Central, the Times simply asks 190,000 experts to list what they regard as the top 30 universities in their field of expertise without offering input data on any performance indicators. Moreover, the survey response rate among the selected experts was found to be below 1%. In other words, on the basis of possible selection biases alone the validity of the measurement is shaky.

The other half of the index is based on such indicators as student-to-faculty ratio, the number of foreign faculty and students in the university, and the number of academic works by university researchers that have been cited internationally. Data for these indicators, however, typically depend on the information that participating institutions submit. An institution’s index, in other words, may be easily distorted if the institution fails to submit data for the pertinent indicators, or if it chooses not to participate.

According to UP Vice President for Public Affairs Dr. Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo, the University of the Philippines manifested its refusal to participate in THES-QS survey in writing as early as July 2007 because Times could not explain where it got the figures on which UP’s rank was based in 2006. In response to UP’s objection, however, Quacquarelli Symonds research assistant Saad Shabbir simply wrote back that if it did not receive the information by the deadline then it would be “forced to use last year’s data or some form of average.”

Apparently for the QS researchers, old data would do—data that had been questioned precisely because its source was dubious. UP has not participated in any international survey of academic institutions since 2000. To date, the country’s National University has neither released official statistics for survey purposes nor consented to any survey undertaking by a local or international body.

Ateneo de Manila University, whose current rank was supposedly an improvement from last year, cautions its alumni and the public to view the results with some degree of prudence. In her comments on the 2007 THES-QS survey published in the Ateneo de Manila University website, Vice President for the Loyola Schools Dr. Ma. Assunta C. Cuyengkeng writes that the rankings do not even reflect Ateneo’s vision and mission. Instead of getting distracted, Cuyengkeng encourages its community to work instead towards strengthening the leadership and excellence of faculty and students as its contribution to national development.

Interestingly, THES-QS are causing quite a stir in other higher education institutions in many countries, not necessarily because of the controversial rankings it annually publishes, but because of what some experts deride as its remarkable flair for making mistakes.

The University of Malaya’s (UM) decline from 89 in 2004 to 169 in 2005, for instance, caused a political turmoil in Malaysia and cost the career of one of the university’s Vice Chancellors. It turned out that QS had counted all the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians as foreign students (one of the criteria in their rankings) in 2004. According to The Star on a Nov. 18, 2005 news report, QS was apparently under the impression that a larger number of foreigners were studying and teaching at UM when actually there were just a lot of Malaysian citizens of Indian and Chinese descent. QS tried to correct this mistake in 2005, resulting to a steep drop in the university’s ranking.

Meanwhile, between 2004 and 2005 Duke University’s rank rose dramatically in the THES-QS survey, thanks to a nasty clerical error. Duke was listed to have 6,244 faculty members, which was well beyond what the university had declared on its website. It turned out, according to Prof. Richard Holmes of the MARA University of Technology in Malaysia, that this was the number of undergraduate students enrolled at Duke in the fall of 2005. Obviously, somebody made the mistake of copying the figure for undergrad students and counted them as faculty, giving Duke four times the number of faculty it actually had.

Quacquarelli Symonds is relatively new in the ranking business but the impact of its surveys can be far-reaching. Some institutions use their results—their methodological flaws notwithstanding—as basis for the distribution of finances over departments and to bolster rivalries among institutions. The October 2007 BioMed study cautions that this could actually be more harmful to science and education and may even encourage global brain drain. For instance, if ranking affects funding policies, institutions and scientists may seek to excel only in the specific criteria used to determine excellence.

There is no debate about the importance of defining, measuring, interpreting and improving institutional excellence. But current international rankings contained in the THES-QS cannot be taken seriously until it establishes its own credibility with the academic community.

 

UP did not participate in the THES-QS university rankings

Friday, October 17, 2008

In the 2008 university rankings recently released by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), the University of the Philippines rose from 398 in 2007 to 276 this year. Ateneo de Manila University rose from 401-500 to 254. De La Salle University was ranked 415th and the University of Santo Tomas was ranked 470th.

This is the third year that such a survey has been conducted and its results given prominence by local dailies. But according to UP Vice President for Public Affairs Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo, UP has never agreed to participate in this survey. In fact, this year, President Emerlinda R. Roman did not even receive an invitation to be a part of it. Nor did she receive any questionnaire to answer.

What she did receive was an email message from QS Asia Regional Director (Asia Pacific), Mandy Mok, informing her that UP had “gone up in the rankings” for 2008. The email also contained an invitation to buy “an attractive package” from THES-QS. The “package price,” which includes a banner on topuniversities.com, a full page full color ad in Top Universities Guide 2009, and a booth at Top Universities Fair 2009, amounts to $48,930.

Since UP was not invited to participate and therefore had not provided any data, UP officials do not know where and how the figures were obtained on which the ranking was based, Hidalgo said.

“UP can hardly be expected to spend more than 2 million pesos on publicity for itself involving a survey conducted by an organization that refuses to divulge where it obtains its data,” she added.

In 2007, UP was invited to participate in the survey, but when THES-QS refused to explain where it obtained the data used to determine UP’s rank in the 2006 survey, university officials decided not to accept the invitation to be part of the 2007 survey. In 2006, UP was ranked No. 299, and Ateneo was ranked No. 500.

UP wrote THES-QS in July 2007, informing them of UP’s decision not to be a part of the survey; and again in September 2007, requesting the organization to respect UP’s decision. In response, research assistant Saad Shabir wrote back saying that if it did not receive the information it would be “forced to use last year’s data or some form of average.”

Surveys and rankings obviously have their usefulness. But, as the National University—status officially granted to it with its new Charter on its centennial year—UP feels that before it agrees to participate in such an exercise, it must carefully examine the indices by which it is to be evaluated. It also needs to be convinced about the reliability of the methodology used in the exercise. 

The THES-QS ranking is supposedly meant to serve as “the definitive guide to universities around the world which truly excel.” In evaluating institutions it computes half of the index based on its reputation as perceived by academics (peer review 40%) and global employers (recruiter review 10%). Since it does not specify who are surveyed or what questions are asked, the methodology is problematic.

In an earlier statement released in August this year, and carried by several national dailies, UP said: “Even peers require standardized input data to review. But according to the International Ranking Systems for Universities and Institutions: A Critical Appraisal, published by BioMed Central, the Times simply asks 190,000 ‘experts’ to list what they regard as the top 30 universities in their field of expertise without providing input data on any performance indicators. Moreover, the survey response rate among selected experts was found to be below 1%. In other words, on the basis of possible selection biases alone, the validity of the measurement is shaky.”

According to the statement, the other half of the index is based on such indicators as student-to faculty ratio, the number of foreign faculty and foreign students in the university, and the number of citations in internationally accredited publications. “Data for these indicators depend on the information that participating institutions submit. An institution’s index may be easily distorted if it fails to submit data for the pertinent indicators, or if it chooses not to participate.”

 

That's quite a stir. It the coming months or so, I may witness most Ateneans in bliss with this tainted news or that it could be their form of banner in every showoffs. I hope to read from respected columnists of daily newspapers, hear commentaries on the radio and the television, and absorb reactions from constituents of these four Philippine universities included in the list.

 

 

I am listening to Susumu Hirasawa's In The Square and Indra while typing this blog entry.

Man, little did I updated this weblog for months now. That's a bit, for myself, embarrassing.

Now, I have here an article by Willy E. Arcilla about improvement of tourism in the Philippines and how several dominating culture and mindset of our countrymen are providing friction to such improvement. By the way, this is from Good News Pilipinas--the website I never fail to visit other than NBA.com whenever I link myself to the internet.

---

PATRIO-T-OURISM: “Only in the Philippines”

While the potential is boundless for tourism to become a growth engine for the country, it remains underoptimized. We salute the accomplishments of the Hon. Secretary Joseph “Ace” Durano and his dedicated team for having attracted 3 Million foreign tourists in 2007, and we support their aspirations to generate US$5 Billion in 2008, but we also lament the fact we still trail our Asian neighbors. What can we all do to boost tourism?

The answer does not lie in foreigners, but in us. We will never achieve a quantum leap of growth in foreign tourists or dollar receipts if we do not first achieve a quantum leap in our patriotism and love for our countrymen. We cannot expect to attract foreign visitors to our country if we ourselves continue to leave in droves. Before we expect others to fall in love with the Philippines, we must first rekindle our love for our country. This is a must to the success of any human endeavor. Noone can sell what he or she does not love.

Excessive Negativism

Secretary Ace Durano has been tireless in campaigning overseas, but sadly, his efforts and that of his team seem to be undermined – not by other countries, but ironically, by our own negative news reporting. All the negative journalism and pessimistic editorials, government scams and showbiz scandals, conflicts and controversies characteristic of media sensationalism have gotten so bad that not a few neighboring Asian countries now use our bad news as their own headlines. We may enjoy press freedom as a democracy, but at the cost of scaring away tourists and frightening foreign investors; at the risk of disillusioning our youth and accelerating the diaspora. The influence of media in forming lasting perceptions is so profound in today’s borderless world, driven by modern information and communications technology so we must be mindful of its consequences.

Perception and Reality

Today, the Philippines is already perceived across the globe as a country suffering from incurable graft and corruption, an endless communist insurgency and a worsening Muslim secessionist movement, unsolved kidnappings and criminality that has resulted in anarchy in the streets. This is mostly perception, not reality, or half-truths at best. The reality is there are 90 Million positive stories that unfold day-in and day-out in the country, written first-hand by positive and optimistic Filipinos who remain resilient and industrious. Sadly however, perception is oftentimes reality in publicity and media.

Press Freedom, Press Responsibility

The 2008 recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award, Honorable Governor of Isabela Grace Padaca, herself a former radio personality, said, “”Media itself is Power. The power of the media should be in the hands of those who will not use it for their own selfish interests.” In fairness to the press, Rhonda Byrne, author of the best-selling book “The Secret”, confesses, “When I discovered The Secret (which is the Law of Attraction), I made a decision that I would not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, because it did not make me feel good. The news services and the newspapers are not in any way to blame for broadcasting bad news. As a global community, we are responsible for it. We buy more newspapers when a huge drama is the headline. The news channels’ ratings skyrocket when there is a national or international disaster. So the newspapers and news services give us more bad news because, as a society, that’s what we are saying we want. The media is effect, and we are cause. It is just the law of attraction in action!”

Bad News that is Good News

Our neighboring countries who have raced ahead of us in economic prosperity also report bad news but there is a major difference. In China for example, corruption scandals are reported with appropriate punitive measures already meted out, e.g., “Mayor of Shanghai Convicted of Corruption!” The message therefore to the local population including those in the government is: (1) Crime does not pay; while to the foreign community: (2) Come — it is safe for you to travel and tour, trade and invest in China. Locally however, it appears that the slightest hint of irregularities or anomalies becomes a source of media frenzy. Sometimes one cannot resist but suspect if members of the media are abusing press freedom just to drive TV ratings and newspaper readership that results in higher circulation numbers and advertising revenues. One evidence of this is that one-half of what one reads in newspapers is a ton of bad news and the other half is a ton of bad ads.

Patriotism Promotes Tourism

Patriotism means moderating our self-flaggelation in media, but it also requires much more. Patriotism also means loving our poor — uplifting them from the squalor that breeds drug addiction and criminality, gambling and alcoholism, which in turn translates into cleaner and safer neighborhoods, with no street urchins or roadside beggars, such as what Gawad Kalinga (Give Care) has been doing throughout the country. Patriotism means our richest taipans and ilustrados sharing their abundance to reduce income disparity and social injustice, enabling less fortunate Filipinos to improve their lot, promoting prosperity to benefit the common good. Patriotism calls for feudal landlords addressing the plight of the rural poor — farmers and fishermen, thus addressing the root cause of our 40-year communist insurgency and Muslim secessionist movement, and ensuring the safety of local and foreign tourists in the countryside. Patriotism means stamping out graft and corruption in government, which will promote the growth of commerce and industry, inviting local small and medium-scale entrepreneurs to invest, thus providing more employment opportunities, raising living standards, educational quality and purchasing power, and ultimately enhancing the investment climate to attract foreign investors. Patriotism means paying the right taxes which can be used to provide adequate basic social services, translating to cleaner streets, lighted neighborhoods and safer cities. Patriotism also means enjoining our 10 Million overseas Filipinos to act as our ambassadors of goodwill, capitalizing on the potency of Word-of-Mouth marketing. Patriotism means protecting our environment – preserving our forests, maintaining our waters, and cleaning our skies, to keep our land beautiful and clean for locals and tourists. Patriotism, in the context of tourism, means investing in the “HEARTS” of a successful tourism campaign – Hospitality and Hotels, Enjoyable Experiences, Airports and Airplanes, Roads, Rail & RORO, Tour Packages and clean Toilets, Safety and Security.

“Only in the Philippines”

It is a familiar line often quoted by locals and foreigners alike to capture the unbelievable sense of exasperation and frustration over a country that has been blessed with abundant beauty and a people imbued with nobility, yet shamelessly exploited by dynasties of “trapos” and greedy oligarchs. Yet in a paradoxical twist, it may also be the best line to use to drive local and foreign tourism, rekindle patriotism and unify a divided nation. It can be argued and it cannot be denied there is also so much natural beauty and goodness that can be found “Only in the Philippines” The same line arouses curiosity among new prospects (there are 1 billion tourists globally) who have never been to our shores. “What can be found ‘Only in the Philippines’”? It reinforces the experience of past visitors who can attest to the country’s uniqueness, while presenting new and more varied experiences.

It is simple and memorable, specific and unique. It is already a popular throwaway line among Filipinos and foreigners alike who are both delighted at our hospitality and aghast at our idiosyncrasies. It is a colloquial “tourist expression” that can be adapted in foreign languages for DOT campaigns. Importantly, it is campaignable even for domestic tourism which represents the normal course of tourism development when locals explore domestic destinations before venturing overseas. Sadly, Filipinos aspire to fly overseas before even appreciating the beauty of our own land and the goodness of our countrymen.

Synergy of Domestic and Foreign Tourism

“Only in the Philippines” lends itself to widespread adoption by all regions and provinces offering unique travel destinations and tourist attractions. The line creates synergy so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. “Only in Ilocos – Only in the Philippines” showcases Vigan, in Ilocos Sur, Pagudpud Beach and Fort Ilocandia in Laoag. The Banaue Rice Terraces, Mt. Pulag and La Trinidad Valley beckon with “Only in Benguet – Only in the Philippines”. In promoting the majestic Mayon Volcano, the pristine Caramoan Islands, and Pacific Ocean surfing in Daet’s Bagasbas Beach, we promote “Only in Bicol – Only in the Philippines”. “Only in Panay” can you experience the “Ati-Atihan” and indulge on the paradise island of Boracay. “Only in Palawan” do you find the world-renowned Tubbataha Reef and the world’s longest Subterranean River. The international and local campaigns can become seamlessly integrated as one, and will mutually reinforce each other to attract both foreign and domestic tourists.

Unity in Diversity

All local government units can now leverage on the national and international tourism campaigns in promoting their respective local destinations. In the process, we recognize and celebrate the uniqueness of each region, but within the context of one country. While Bicolanos will feel affirmation from “Only in Bicol”, they themselves will acknowledge the attraction of traveling to see and experience what is “Only in Ilocos”. “Only in the Philippines” also dovetails neatly into the “One Town-One Product” (OTOP) program created by the Office of the President to promote entrepreneurship, identifying products which small towns can produce at a comparative advantage vs. other neighboring towns. “Christmas Lanterns — Only in Pampanga”. “Strawberries – Only in Benguet” and so on.

Sola en las Filipinas!

The real excitement is in its global application across multiple languages beyond English-speaking nations like the US and Canada, the UK and Australia/New Zealand. In Mandarin Chinese, the line translates neatly to “Jin Zai Fei Lu Bin”, while in Cantonese, it is “Gan Zoi Fei Lud Ban”. In Japanese, it’s “Filipin Dah-Keh”, and in Korean, “Filipin Esoman”. The growing number of Russian tourists might be lured with, “Tolko V Filipine”. In Spain, our slogan is aptly “Sola en las Filipinas”, which can also be used for the entire Latin America. The French can say, “Seulement dans le Philippines”; the Germans affirm, “Nur in der Philippinen” and the Italians, “Soltanto nelle Filipine”.

Where else can you find all these and more?

Where else can you find a land as beautiful as its people, and a people as warm as its climate? Where else can you find a nation as rich as its history, and a culture as colorful as her transport “(vintas and jeepneys)? Where else can you find a workforce as talented as her artists, and an economy as vibrant as her freedoms? Where else can you find dining as delightful as her shopping, and golf fairways as tranquil as her day spas? Where else can you find fruits as delicious as her hillsides (Bohol Chocolate Hills), and a nightlife as breathtaking as her sunset? Finally, where else can you find a people with pride in her past, a passion for her present, and faith in her future? All these and more . . . “ONLY IN THE PHILIPPINES”.

---

As an update, I am about to transfer to an apartment outside the UPLB campus. That's kinda sad since I've been staying in New Dorm for more than three years. Alas, that's the least I could do to alleviate my expected haggard job since I've just been elected as new Director of the UP Painters' Club. Watch out for our exhibition at Sining Makiling Gallery this November 27 for His Art, Our Heart: The Amorsolo Retrospective with collaboration from the Metropolitan Museum of Manila with theme "bayANInanding: The Motherland and the Harvest of Maestro Amorsolo". But in our gallery's case, the theme's simply "Makiling".  Moreover, our organization's teaming up with UPLB Office for Initiatives in Culture and the Arts and the office of Chancellor of UPLB to hold an art exhibition for the centennial celebration of UPLB on February 2009. It will comprise of 100 artworks coming from UPLB constituents and affiliated institutions or offices. We're aiming for it be held at the Makiling Ballroom or the two Sunken Lobbies of the Student Union Building. How I wish this event will be so successful!



I made this blog entry in a computer rental center somewhere in the busy street of Lopez Drive in Los Baños, Laguna. I'm not listening to whatever music except that I heard Jose Mari Chan's Perfect Christmas (my favorite christmas song) from a neighboring computer rentee.