August 29, 2006 Source: :
http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/mediaroom/pressreleases/2006/08/007388.shtml Letter to Maclean's magazine MONTREAL/August 29, 2006 — Dear Mr. Keller, We regret to inform you that Concordia University will not participate in Maclean’s rankings exercise this year. Our position is described below, and we state publicly, and at the outset, that Concordia will be active participants in a Canadian higher education rankings exercise that respects the Berlin principles. Over the past sixteen years, and in spite of consistent concerns raised by the measurement specialists on our staff, Concordia has participated in Maclean’s university rankings exercise. Our participation has greatly benefited Maclean’s, but we maintain that the benefits to Concordia have been far less clear. In addition to the costs borne by our institution in the collection, analysis, and reporting of the data we request, we consider Concordia’s strengths and mission to be misrepresented in the manner in which the rankings are portrayed and reported by your magazine. Furthermore, numerous attempts have been made to encourage Maclean’s to respond to these and other concerns, outlined below, which have received a less than enthusiastic response from your magazine. In light of these and other recent developments, Concordia has decided not to participate in the rankings exercise this year. As you know, in 2004 the International Ranking Expert Group was founded by the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education and the Institute for Higher Education Policy in Washington. In 2006, the IREG published the "Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions." The methodological issues touched upon by the signatories to the letter you received on August 14th, 2006 in paragraphs 6-9 are dealt with in the principles. We would not allow our students such methodological liberties, and we agree with the methodological assessments contained in that letter. It makes little sense for us to participate in an exercise that makes methodological mistakes we would not accept in our students’ work. While we ascribe to the goals of these principles generally, we draw your attention to the following items of special interest to Concordia. Item 3 in the "Purposes and Goals of Rankings" reads: Recognize the diversity of institutions and take the different missions and goals of institutions into account. Quality measures for research-oriented institutions, for example, are quite different from those that are appropriate for institutions that provide broad access to underserved communities. Institutions that are being ranked and the experts that inform the ranking process should be consulted often. Concordia is university founded on principles of quality and accessibility. The history of one of our founding institutions, Sir George Williams University, begins with evening classes offered at the first North American YMCA in 1873. Concordia’s mission of serving large part-time student contingents makes it essentially different from many of the other institutions that are aggregated in the Maclean’s rankings. This issue is not addressed in your exercise. Item 5 in the "Purposes and Goals of Rankings" reads: Specify the linguistic, cultural, economic, and historical contexts of the educational systems being ranked. International rankings in particular should be aware of possible biases and be precise about their objective. Not all nations or systems share the same values and beliefs about what constitutes "quality" in tertiary institutions, and ranking systems should not be devised to force such comparisons. While Maclean’s rankings are not international, Concordia functions under a different "system" that in many ways is in incommensurate with every other university in Maclean’s "comprehensive’ category. Concordia is a primarily English university that operates in the Québec higher education system. The fact that our students attend Collèges d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) for their 12th and 13th years of formal education prior to applying for a program at Concordia, the nature of Québec’s higher education funding formula and tuition, are not taken into account in the rankings. Item 7 in the "Design and Weighting of Indicators" reads: Measure outcomes in preference to inputs whenever possible. Data on inputs are relevant as they reflect the general condition of a given establishment and are more frequently available. Measures of outcomes provide a more accurate assessment of the standing and/or quality of a given institution or program, and compilers of rankings should ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved. Concordia continues to maintain that the inputs measured by Maclean’s are poor substitutes for outcomes. Furthermore, the inputs chosen must be shown empirically to lead to improved educational outcomes if they have any hope of being considered valid. Concordia’s outcomes continue to be on par with those of other major Canadian universities (as our participation in the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange and the independent reputation survey we commissioned are showing), but the reader would have no idea based on Maclean’s ranking of inputs that such was the case. We remain committed to accountability and transparency. Data we are legally able to publicize will be available on our website, we will be active participants in Canadian higher education rankings exercises that respect the Berlin principles. Yours truly, Claude Lajeunesse
Source: Tanya Churchmuch
Senior Media Relations Advisor
Concordia University
Phone: (514) 848-2424, ext. 2518
Cell: (514) 518-3336
Fax: (514) 848-3383
Email: Tanya.Churchmuch@concordia.ca
| 