ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For their assistance providing data, background information and expertise, the authors are grateful to members of the PIN Panel and Steering Group.
Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Ranking Of National Higher Education Systems
Ranking of National,Higher Education Systems,A project sponsored by. Ross Williams,University of Melbourne,Anne Leahy,University of Melbourne. The project is based at the,Melbourne Institute of Applied. Economic and Social Research,University of Melbourne. 2 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 3. Acknowledgements Contents, The following people have played an important Overall Table of Rankings 4. role in the development of the project,Executive Summary 5. Associate Professor Ying Cheng,Graduate School of Education. 1 Introduction 6,Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2 Changes in data and methodology from the 2017 rankings 7. Professor Ga tan de Rassenfosse,EPFL Switzerland,3 Measures and Results 8. Professor Sir David Greenaway, University of Nottingham 4 Methodology of adjusting for levels of economic development 18. Professor Simon Marginson 5 Results after adjusting for levels of economic development 19. Institute of Education University College London,6 Using the findings to improve performance 26. The Universitas 21 Secretariat at the University of 7 Research training 29. Birmingham has again provided valuable,assistance We especially thank Jade Bressington. 8 Concluding remarks 31,the Director of Operations. Appendixes and references 32,We are most grateful to Mark Neijssel and Robert. Tijssen of CWTS Leiden University for providing us Country Summaries 35. with data measuring joint publications of universities. with industry We thank Isidro Aguillo for providing. data from Webometrics, 4 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 5. Overall U21 2018 Ranking Executive Summary, This report presents the results for the seventh annual ranking The top four nations for Connectivity are Switzerland Austria. Rank Rank Country Score Score Rank Rank Country Score Score of national systems of higher education undertaken under the the United Kingdom and Sweden The top country in the Output. 2018 2017 2017 2018 2017 2017, auspices of the Universitas 21 U21 network of universities Fifty module is clearly the United States followed by Australia. 1 1 United States 100 0 100 0 26 25 Malaysia 55 7 56 7 national systems of higher education from all continents are Switzerland Denmark Canada and Sweden. evaluated across 24 attributes The measures are standardised. 2 2 Switzerland 88 0 86 9 27 24 Czech Republic 55 6 56 9 for population size Countries are ranked overall and on each of An overall ranking is derived using a weight of 40 per cent for. 3 3 United Kingdom 82 6 85 5 28 28 Italy 54 0 54 5 four modules Resources Policy Environment Connectivity and Output and 20 per cent for each of the other three modules The. Output Within each measure the highest achieving country is top five countries in rank order are the United States Switzerland. 4 5 Sweden 82 4 83 4 29 28 Slovenia 53 6 54 5 given a score of 100 and scores for other countries are expressed the United Kingdom Sweden and Denmark A subsidiary ranking. 5 4 Denmark 81 7 83 5 30 30 China 52 4 52 7 as a percentage of this highest score compares how nations perform relative to countries at similar. levels of GDP per capita The top ranked countries are now. 6 9 Finland 79 7 79 9 31 32 Poland 51 3 50 0 Resources and the Environment are input variables Resources Finland and the United Kingdom followed by Serbia Denmark. whether private or public are a necessary condition for a quality Sweden Portugal Switzerland and South Africa. 6 8 Netherlands 79 7 80 0 32 35 Greece 49 5 47 7, system of higher education but they must be complemented by. 8 7 Canada 79 6 80 2 33 33 Russia 49 3 49 9 a policy environment which facilitates their efficient use The By comparing inputs and outcomes it is possible to provide. five measures in the Environment module include diversity of advice on how performance can be improved Regression results. 9 6 Singapore 79 5 80 8 34 34 Chile 49 0 49 4, institutions autonomy of institutions and the extent of external suggest that outcomes are equally dependent on Resources. 10 10 Australia 78 6 79 6 35 38 Slovakia 48 7 45 9 monitoring of institutional performance The highest ranked and the Environment and together they account for around. countries for Resources based on five expenditure measures three quarters of the variation in outcomes We allow for lagged. 11 11 Austria 75 8 75 0 36 31 Hungary 48 3 50 8, are Switzerland Sweden Singapore Denmark Canada and behaviour using our rankings from previous years and find that. 12 13 Norway 74 5 73 9 37 37 South Africa 47 7 46 6 the United States The countries with the most favourable current outcomes are best explained by Resource levels four. Environment are judged to be the United States Australia years earlier The impact of research articles is increased by. 13 12 Belgium 73 3 74 2 38 35 Ukraine 47 4 47 7, New Zealand Singapore Finland Hong Kong SAR and the joint authorship with both international authors and industry. 14 15 New Zealand 71 1 72 1 39 42 Brazil 45 0 43 1 United Kingdom We observe patterns in institutional links with industry in Eastern. European countries the links take the form of joint authorship. 15 16 Germany 69 2 68 8 40 41 Argentina 44 2 43 5 Connectivity and Output are measures of outcomes The worth whereas in East Asian countries general knowledge transfer is. 16 18 France 68 5 67 5 41 40 Turkey 44 0 44 0 of a national higher education system is enhanced if it is well more important. connected domestically with other sectors of the economy and. 17 14 Hong Kong SAR 67 8 73 7 42 39 Serbia 42 8 44 1 is linked internationally in education and research The five We extend our work in two ways First we examine the. 18 16 Israel 66 3 68 8 43 44 Romania 42 2 41 6 Connectivity measures are joint publications with international concentration of research the median level of publications. authors and with authors from industry international student attributable to the top 10 per cent of institutions in each country. 19 19 Ireland 64 8 66 7 44 45 Bulgaria 42 0 40 2 numbers web connectivity and the views of business on the is 43 per cent Secondly we look at the importance of research. extent of knowledge transfer The nine Output measures training as measured by the number of PhD graduates the. 20 20 Japan 61 9 63 2 45 43 Croatia 41 0 42 5, encompass research output and its impact student throughput income premium earned by those with a graduate degree. 21 21 Taiwan China 60 2 60 7 46 46 Mexico 40 3 40 0 the national stock of graduates and researchers the quality of and the throughput of PhDs relative to the existing stock of. a nation s best universities and the employability of graduates researchers in higher education. 22 22 Korea 58 0 59 0 47 47 Thailand 40 0 39 7,23 25 Saudi Arabia 57 0 56 7 48 48 Iran 38 9 38 4. 24 27 Portugal 56 4 55 8 49 49 India 36 8 36 7,25 23 Spain 56 2 57 3 50 50 Indonesia 33 5 33 3. 6 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 7. 1 Introduction 2 Changes in Data and,Methodology from the. 2017 Rankings, This report presents the results for the seventh annual ranking relevant section below and sources are given in Appendix 1. of national systems of higher education undertaken under the Our methodology is set out in detail in Williams de Rassenfosse. auspices of the Universitas 21 U21 network of universities Jensen and Marginson 2013. The national ranking of systems complements the many. The research output measures are now taken from InCites been an increase in publications recorded by InCites between. international rankings of universities The rankings of institutions Resources whether public or private are a necessary condition. whereas in previous years we used data provided by SciMago 2014 and 2016 then the values from our 2017 rankings are used. are essentially rankings of research intensive universities and as for a well functioning system of higher education but they are. The underlying source of data has thus moved from the Scopus if there has been a fall in publications as recorded by InCites. such encourage a bias in systems of higher education towards not sufficient A well designed policy environment is needed to. data base produced by Elsevier to the Web of Science data between 2014 and 2016 then the values from our 2017 rankings. that type of institution ensure that resources are used well A consensus is emerging. bank produced by Clarivate Analytics The coverage of tertiary are scaled down proportionately Another effect of the change. that the preferred environment is one where institutions. institutions in each country is broadly the same except that in data source is to reduce the importance of joint international. The measures used in the ranking of national systems must are allowed considerable autonomy tempered by external. institutions which publish fewer than 100 papers in a year are publications for Hong Kong SAR presumably because of the. reflect the aims of higher education These include the monitoring and competition The Environment module contains. now included this change is quantitatively unimportant The different treatment of publications with mainland authors. education and training of a nation s people contributing to measures of these characteristics. coverage of journals does differ however The new data base. innovation through research and facilitating interconnections. is used to calculate four variables total number of documents In the Environment module the main change occurs in the Rating. between tertiary institutions and external stakeholders both Turning to outcomes our Output variables encompass attributes. produced O1 documents per head O2 average impact of of Financial Autonomy E4 3 arising from new ratings data. domestic and foreign A good system of higher education will such as participation rates research performance the existence. articles O3 and joint publications with international authors C2 published by the European University Association Also data for. encompass a range of institutions to meet personal desires and of some world class universities and employability of graduates. The research output data now relate to the year 2016 whereas Croatia Serbia and Slovenia have been collected for the first time. perceived national needs Salmi 2017a p 237 Williams 2018 There is a world wide trend for governments to encourage. in our last year s ranking data for 2014 was used that is the data. Diversity can also be an effective way to improve enrolment institutions of higher education to strengthen relationships. are moved two years on In measuring web connectivity the variable TRANSPARENCY. rates as noted by Jamil Salmi 2017b p 121 former tertiary with business and the rest of the community The Connectivity. has been dropped and the weight transferred to the VISIBILTY. education co ordinator at the World Bank module includes variables which span this wider concept see de. Comparing the InCites and SciMago data for the common year variable The TRANSPARENCY measure is based on the top ten. Rassenfosse and Williams 2015 In a new initiative we examine. of 2014 total publications for our 50 countries are four per cent authors in each institution excluding the most cited as measured. Spreading enrollment growth across a variety of tertiary institutions performance in research training. higher for InCites However for several countries the InCites in Google Scholar citations As such it is not ideally suited to. and non universities public and private instead of simply. data are lower significantly so for four countries China Iran measuring national performance as it is influenced by average. expanding the public university sub sector can be an effective Our work extends well beyond ranking Using our data countries. Malaysia and Mexico Given that the journal coverage of data institutional size. strategy for reaching the country s enrollment targets in a more can benchmark performance over a range of attributes. banks changes over time there is no easy way to project the 2014. financially manageable way from a public resources perspective noting strengths in some areas weaknesses in others To. differences forward In order not to unduly penalise countries for Data are now provided for Colombia which on our original. permit countries to benchmark performance against other. the data bank change the approach adopted for countries that criterion of research publications would now be included. We use 25 measures of performance grouped into four modules countries at similar stages of development we also present. on the raw data would otherwise experience a fall in publications However to trace the ranking of the original 50 countries over. Resources Environment Connectivity and Output The first two estimates of a country s performance relative to its level of. between our 2017 and 2018 rankings based on SciMago 2014 time Colombia is not formally included in the ranking but we do. are input measures and the second pair measure outcomes For GDP per capita However it is one thing to know where a. data and InCites 2016 data respectively is as follows if there has indicate its place if it were to be included. each variable the best performing country is given a score of 100 nation ranks internationally it is another to provide a template. and scores for all other countries are expressed as a percentage for improvement The use of modules permits us to compare. of this highest score Separate rankings are provided for each inputs with outcomes through which we can suggest ways that. of the modules A description of each variable is given in the outcomes can be improved. 8 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 9. 3 Measures and Results Resources Ranking,3 1 Resources weight of 20. A necessary condition for a well performing higher education to 1 49 per cent but public expenditure has fallen from 1 02 to 0 99. system is that it is adequately resourced whether by government per cent of GDP There has been a modest increase in research Rank Country Score Rank Country Score Rank Country Score. or the private sector One measure is expenditure by tertiary expenditure rising from 0 35 to 0 37 per cent of GDP. institutions as a share of GDP But for low income countries 1 Switzerland 100 0 18 Germany 66 7 35 Chile 49 0. especially those with a large student age population a high The highest ranked countries for resources in the 2018 rankings 2 Sweden 99 3 19 Korea 65 8 36 Slovenia 48 0. share of GDP may not translate into high expenditure per student are Switzerland Sweden Singapore Denmark Canada and the. 3 Singapore 97 2 20 New Zealand 63 6 37 Mexico 47 2. so we also include the latter In the absence of measures of United States in that order Increases in research expenditure. the quality of teaching that are comparable across all our 50 have seen Slovakia rise by six places Greece by five places 4 Denmark 97 1 21 Turkey 61 6 38 Italy 47 0. countries the measure of resources per student in part serves and Switzerland by four places Mexico has risen five places 5 Canada 96 6 22 Israel 61 4 39 India 42 4. as a proxy To measure the contribution of tertiary education to following an increase in government expenditure Reductions. 6 United States 93 5 23 Japan 59 6 40 Argentina 41 7. a nation s research effort we include measures of expenditure in government expenditure as a share of GDP have occasioned. 7 Norway 90 4 24 Portugal 59 4 41 South Africa 41 6. on R D in tertiary institutions In summary our five measures of noticeable falls in the Resource rank for four countries Hungary. resources and their weights are down eight places Chile and Ukraine down seven places and 8 Austria 89 9 25 Ukraine 59 1 42 Russia 40 7. Ireland down five places Colombia would rank 39th if included. 9 Finland 89 8 26 Czech Republic 55 6 43 Croatia 39 6. R1 5 Government expenditure on tertiary education,10 Saudi Arabia 89 6 27 Greece 54 4 44 China 38 7. institutions as a percentage of GDP 2014 Turning to the rankings of the five components government. expenditure on higher education is highest in Saudi Arabia at 2 4 11 Netherlands 83 1 28 Serbia 53 7 45 Romania 37 7. R2 5 Total expenditure on tertiary education institutions as. per cent The next ranked countries are in alphabetical order 12 Malaysia 81 5 29 Spain 53 1 46 Iran 37 0. a percentage of GDP 2014, Austria the four Nordic countries and Ukraine The two lowest. 13 Hong Kong SAR 74 9 30 Ireland 52 9 47 Hungary 35 7. R3 5 Annual expenditure per student full time equivalent ranked countries are Japan and Indonesia where government. by tertiary education institutions in USD purchasing power expenditure on tertiary education is only 0 5 per cent of GDP 14 Australia 74 7 31 Slovakia 52 9 48 Bulgaria 31 4. parity 2014 Total expenditure as a share of GDP is highest in the United 15 Belgium 72 0 32 Taiwan China 52 8 49 Thailand 29 7. States Canada Saudi Arabia Malaysia and Korea in that order. R4 2 5 Expenditure in tertiary education institutions for 16 United Kingdom 71 7 33 Poland 52 2 50 Indonesia 20 2. Expenditure per student which includes research expenditure. research and development as a percentage of GDP 2015. is estimated to be highest in Singapore Then follow the United 17 France 69 0 34 Brazil 50 5. R5 2 5 Expenditure in tertiary education institutions for States Switzerland the United Kingdom and Sweden in that. research and development per head of population at USD order Research expenditure by tertiary institutions as a share of. purchasing power parity 2015 GDP ranges from Denmark s 1 0 per cent to India s 0 025 per cent. In addition to Denmark countries that rank highly in research. The trend for private expenditure to replace public expenditure expenditure are in order Switzerland Sweden Austria Finland. continues Compared with last year s data the median share of Canada the Netherlands and Australia. GDP devoted to higher education has risen marginally from 1 47. 10 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 11. 3 2 Environment weight of 20 Environment Ranking, A consensus is emerging that for a quality higher education The top ranked countries in the Environment module are the. system institutions need considerable financial autonomy United States Australia New Zealand Australia Singapore Rank Country Score Rank Country Score Rank Country Score. but there also needs to be appropriate diversity competition Finland Hong Kong SAR and the United Kingdom The data for. between institutions and external monitoring of performance The variables E1 to E3 move only slowly so changes in rank occur 1 United States 100 0 18 Ireland 80 7 35 Portugal 73 6. degree to which national systems possess these characteristics is mainly due to the new rating of financial autonomy by the EUA 2 Australia 94 3 19 Israel 80 2 36 Slovenia 72 7. measured by the results of three survey findings complemented E4 3 and changes in the rating given by business E5 The. 3 New Zealand 93 9 20 Chile 79 8 37 Ukraine 71 4, by four quantitative measures falls from the 2017 rankings for Croatia 4 and Serbia 3. arise from their inclusion in the EUA ratings for the first time The 4 Singapore 90 7 21 Japan 79 4 38 Italy 70 9. The measures we use and their weights are reductions in financial autonomy largely explain the drop from 5 Finland 90 5 22 South Africa 79 2 39 Slovakia 69 3. E1 1 Proportion of female students in tertiary education 11th to 18th for Ireland Canada s rank has improved from 20th to. 6 Hong Kong SAR 88 7 23 Denmark 79 0 40 Iran 67 3, 2015 13th following a rise in business approval E5 and an increase in. 7 United Kingdom 88 5 24 Austria 78 4 41 Brazil 66 8. level 5 enrolments For 60 per cent of countries the business rating. E2 2 Proportion of academic staff in tertiary institutions. fell so that for those countries showing an improvement the rank 8 Taiwan China 87 4 25 France 78 3 42 Hungary 66 3. who are female 2015, improved more than usually The improved business rating for. 9 Netherlands 87 4 26 Mexico 77 7 43 Bulgaria 65 9. E3 2 A rating for data quality For each quantitative series India has led to an overall improvement in rank of four. 10 Belgium 85 1 27 Germany 76 7 44 Korea 65 5, the value is 2 if the data are available for the exact definition. of the variable 1 if some data are available which relate to For the qualitative index E4 the top ranked countries are the 11 Switzerland 84 1 28 Russia 76 6 45 India 65 3. the variable but some informed adjustment is required and United States Australia New Zealand Taiwan China Hong Kong 12 Sweden 82 7 29 Thailand 76 5 46 Saudi Arabia 64 8. 0 otherwise SAR and Singapore,13 Canada 81 5 30 Romania 75 7 47 Turkey 63 2. E4 10 Qualitative measure of the policy environment. Only in four countries for which data are available does the 14 Poland 81 4 31 Indonesia 75 4 48 Croatia 60 7. comprising, percentage of female staff in tertiary institutions exceed 50 15 Malaysia 81 2 32 Argentina 75 0 49 Serbia 58 8. E4 1 2 Diversity of the system comprising two per cent Finland Malaysia Thailand and Russia The largest. 16 China 81 2 33 Spain 74 6 50 Greece 47 4, components of equal weight the percentage of tertiary increase occurred in the Netherlands 40 to 44 per cent Business. students enrolled in private institutions capped at 50 per as measured by the WEF survey ranks the national education 17 Norway 81 0 34 Czech Republic 74 3. cent and the percentage of students enrolled in ISCED systems most highly in Switzerland Singapore Finland the United. level 5 courses 2015 States the Netherlands and Ireland The largest increase from. last year s rankings occurred for the United States the largest fall. E4 2 4 Survey results for the policy and regulatory. occurred for Belgium 4 to 12,environment see Appendix 2. E4 3 4 Survey results for the financial autonomy of. public universities see Appendix 2, E5 5 Responses to WEF survey question 7 point scale. How well does the educational system in your country meet. the needs of a competitive economy, 12 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 13. 3 3 Connectivity weight of 20 Connectivity Ranking. The worth of a national higher education system is enhanced Romania has fallen nine places and Mexico five places mainly. if it is well connected with the rest of the nation s society and is due to more negative views held by business The new data series Rank Country Score Rank Country Score Rank Country Score. linked internationally in education and research Connectivity for joint publications with international authors has occasioned a. promotes technical change and economic growth In this ranking fall in overall rank of eight places for Hong Kong SAR presumably 1 Switzerland 100 0 18 Hungary 61 7 35 Chile 42 5. we use only one measure of web connectivity instead of the two due to a difference in the treatment of publications with mainland 2 Austria 91 6 19 Hong Kong SAR 61 5 36 Thailand 41 1. measures used in previous years but the single measure carries authors Colombia would rank 38th if included. 3 United Kingdom 87 5 20 Israel 58 8 37 Ukraine 38 7. the weight of the two previous measures There are now five. measures each with equal weight The median percentage for joint international publications C2 4 Netherlands 84 2 21 Czech Republic 57 9 38 Serbia 37 1. has risen to 48 8 percent The top two countries are Saudi Arabia 5 Denmark 81 5 22 Slovenia 54 9 39 Brazil 36 8. C1 4 Proportion of international students in tertiary 76 per cent and Switzerland 67 per cent Next in rank order. 6 New Zealand 80 9 23 Taiwan China 54 5 40 Poland 36 7. education 2015 all above 60 per cent are Belgium Austria Chile Singapore and. 7 Sweden 80 4 24 Japan 52 4 41 Romania 36 5, the four Nordic countries Countries with the largest increases. C2 4 Proportion of articles co authored with international. in international authorship above eight percentage points are 8 Finland 80 1 25 Portugal 51 6 42 Croatia 36 0. collaborators 2016, Slovenia Hungary and Malaysia For Malaysia a contributing. 9 Belgium 77 6 26 Saudi Arabia 51 3 43 Argentina 33 7. C3 Webometrics TRANSPARENCY not used factor was the increase in scientific publications with foreign. 10 Singapore 76 8 27 Italy 50 9 44 China 33 5, companies C6 albeit from a low base The six most highly. C4 4 Webometrics VISIBILITY index external links that. ranked countries for the percentage of scientific articles written 11 United States 75 9 28 Greece 49 2 45 Indonesia 32 4. university web domains receive from third parties via. with industry are in rank order Austria the Netherlands Sweden 12 Canada 71 6 29 Spain 48 3 46 Russia 32 0. MAJESTIC Sum of data for 10 000 tertiary institutions divided. Denmark Japan and Hungary The shares for these countries are. by country s population July 2017 edition 13 Germany 71 4 30 Slovakia 47 3 47 Mexico 30 4. in the range 6 to 8 per cent The median share of joint industry. C5 4 Responses to question Knowledge transfer is highly publications in science has increased to 4 7 per cent from 3 8 per 14 Australia 70 7 31 Korea 44 8 48 Turkey 25 4. developed between companies and universities asked cent in last year s ranking 15 Ireland 70 4 32 South Africa 44 8 49 India 24 3. of business executives in the annual survey by IMD World. 16 Norway 69 2 33 Malaysia 44 7 50 Iran 24 3, Development Centre Switzerland 2017 The top seven countries for knowledge transfer in the IMD survey. of business executives C5 are in rank order Switzerland the 17 France 65 4 34 Bulgaria 43 5. C6 4 Percentage of university scientific research, United States the Netherlands Denmark Israel Ireland and. publications that are co authored with industry researchers. the United Kingdom In rank order the highest percentage of. international students in tertiary education are in New Zealand. Singapore the United Kingdom Switzerland Austria and. The top four nations for Connectivity are in rank order. Australia Malaysia has improved its rank by eleven to 17th. Switzerland Austria the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Australia has fallen three places owing to a fall off in the share. Then come four countries with similar scores Denmark. of international students in short cycle tertiary programs While. Finland New Zealand and Sweden Brazil exhibits the largest. there has been some compression of values for Web Impact. improvement rising nine places due to an increase in the. C4 the United States is still ranked a clear first followed by. recorded number of foreign students Poland has risen six places. Switzerland Canada Finland and the United Kingdom, owing to a much more favourable rating by business Conversely. 14 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 15. 3 4 Output weight of 40 Output Ranking, The measures used in this module encompass research The top country in the Output module is clearly the United States. output and its impact student throughput the national stock The United Kingdom is second followed by Australia Switzerland Rank Country Score Rank Country Score Rank Country Score. of graduates and researchers the quality of a nation s best and Denmark Canada and Sweden are equal sixth The top ten. universities and employability of graduates The variables are countries remain the same as in the 2017 rankings with only minor 1 United States 100 0 18 Korea 48 1 35 Chile 29 5. given below reordering The change in the source of the publications data 2 United Kingdom 70 1 19 Austria 47 7 36 South Africa 29 2. which affects three of the variables O1 O2 O3 has not unduly. 3 Australia 64 7 20 New Zealand 47 6 37 Brazil 28 5. O1 10 Total research documents produced by higher disturbed the ranking in this module For only three countries has. education institutions 2016 the ranking changed by more than three places Chile up by six 4 Switzerland 64 4 21 Hong Kong SAR 46 5 38 Argentina 28 4. places and Croatia down seven places both due to changes in 5 Denmark 62 9 22 China 46 2 39 Bulgaria 28 1. O2 3 Total research documents produced by higher, the scores on the Shanghai ranking O4 and O5 and Turkey. education institutions per head of population 2016 6 Sweden 62 1 23 Taiwan China 43 9 40 Turkey 28 0. is up four places primarily due to more recent data on the. 7 Canada 62 1 24 Spain 43 9 41 Croatia 27 5, O3 5 Average impact of articles as measured by the participation rate Colombia would rank 47th if included. Category Normalised Citation Impact for documents 8 Netherlands 59 7 25 Italy 42 4 42 Malaysia 27 1. published 2012 16 Publications per head of population remain highest in Denmark. 9 Finland 56 9 26 Russia 41 0 43 Iran 27 0, Switzerland and Australia followed by Sweden and Singapore. O4 3 The depth of world class universities in a country 10 Israel 55 5 27 Greece 40 6 44 Ukraine 26 5. Switzerland is clearly the top country for the average impact of. This is calculated as the total scores for a nation s universities. publications followed by the United States and the Netherlands 11 Germany 55 0 28 Portugal 40 1 45 Serbia 25 6. in the Shanghai Jiao Tong Index top 500 institutions divided. Next in rank order are the United Kingdom Denmark Singapore 12 Belgium 54 7 29 Slovenia 38 0 46 Romania 24 2. by population, and Belgium The United States and the United Kingdom clearly. 13 France 54 4 30 Czech Republic 36 6 47 India 20 5. O5 7 The excellence of a nation s best universities dominant the best three universities variable O5 followed. calculated by totalling the 2017 Shanghai Jiao Tong Index by Canada Switzerland and Japan The variable O4 can be 14 Norway 54 4 31 Poland 35 3 48 Thailand 20 1. scores for the nation s three best universities interpreted as a rough measure of how easy it is for a student 15 Singapore 54 2 32 Hungary 31 5 49 Mexico 16 9. to enrol in a world ranked institution Switzerland Sweden. O6 3 Enrolments in tertiary education as a percentage of 16 Ireland 50 1 33 Saudi Arabia 30 9 50 Indonesia 14 7. Denmark and Australia are the highest ranked, the eligible population defined as the five year age group. 17 Japan 49 6 34 Slovakia 29 5,following on from secondary education 2015. Canada and Russia have the most qualified workforce O7. O7 3 Percentage of the population aged 25 64 with a followed by Japan and Israel and Ukraine and Korea The. tertiary qualification 2016 national stock of researchers relative to population is highest in. Israel followed by Denmark Korea and Sweden Unemployment. O8 3 Number of researchers full time equivalent in the. of the tertiary educated relative to school leavers O9 is lowest in. nation per million of population 2015, South Africa Hungary the United States Argentina and Poland. O9 3 Unemployment rates among tertiary educated aged In six countries unemployment is higher for those with a tertiary. 25 64 years compared with unemployment rates for those qualification Denmark Malaysia Mexico Saudi Arabia Taiwan. with only upper secondary or post secondary non tertiary China and Thailand This result has persisted over several years. education 2016, 16 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 17. 3 5 Overall Ranking Top 5 Overall,U21 Ranking 2018. An overall ranking is obtained by summing the module scores out largest change was a fall of five places for Hungary arising from. of 100 using weights of 40 per cent on Output and 20 per cent on reduced government funding In addition to Singapore four other. each of the other three modules The top five countries in order countries fell by three places the Czech Republic Hong Kong SAR. are the United States Switzerland the United Kingdom Sweden Serbia and Ukraine For two countries data changes were the. and Denmark The only change from the 2017 rankings is that cause of the fall better information on the degree of autonomy of. Denmark and Sweden have swapped positions Finland and the institutions in Serbia change in the definition of joint international. Netherlands are equal sixth followed by Canada and Singapore publications for Hong Kong SAR In Ukraine there was a decline in. with Australia rounding out the top ten Finland has risen three relative expenditure on higher education 88. places because of an improvement in relative performance for 82 6 82 4 81 7. the Environment and Connectivity Singapore has fallen three No country improved its rank by more than three In addition to. places owing to falls in the rank for Connectivity and Output Finland four countries improved their rank by three places Brazil. Greece Portugal and Slovakia For Brazil the rise in rank was. Systems evolve slowly over time Compared with the 2017 rankings due largely to a higher score for Connectivity for the other three. for 33 of our 50 countries the rank change was at most one The countries there was an improvement across the board. United States Rank 1,Switzerland Rank 2,United Kingdom Rank 3. Sweden Rank 4,Denmark Rank 5, 18 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 19. 4 Methodology of adjusting 5 Results after adjusting for. for levels of economic levels of economic development. development 5 1 Resources, Expenditures are best described by a linear relationship with cent It follows that rankings are like those discussed in section. In our main rankings the performance of a country is measured instead we rank the countries by GDP per capita and take a. GDP except for research expenditure where a quadratic curve 3 1 The top five countries for the level of government expenditure. against world best practice But comparisons of performance moving average of actual scores to derive more robust estimates. fits best The highest ranked countries for resources are Malaysia after adjusting for GDP per capita are Ukraine Saudi Arabia. should also be made with that of countries at similar levels of of predicted values. and Serbia where expenditures are nearly 40 per cent more than Finland Austria and Malaysia The highest ranked countries for. economic development More precisely how well does a country. what is expected given their income levels Resources devoted total expenditure as a share of GDP are now Canada Malaysia. perform on each of our criteria relative to its level of per capita In aggregating over variables we first express deviations from. to higher education are 25 to 30 per cent more than expected in the United States Ukraine Saudi Arabia Korea and Chile. income To adjust for national levels of income we regress the the regression line as a percentage of the average of the actual. Canada Finland Sweden and Ukraine and around 22 per cent Expenditure which includes research expenditure per student. values for each variable in original units on GDP per capita and predicted values To use the percentage deviations from the. above expected for Denmark and Saudi Arabia increases markedly with income levels on average by around. using data for all 50 countries The GDP we use is for 2015 in line would ignore the fact that the predicted values below the. USD352 for each USD1 000 increase in GDP per capita R2. US dollars measured in Purchasing Power Parity PPP terms line are capped at 100 per cent whereas there is no limit above. Compared with the non adjusted rankings the countries showing 0 73 The top three countries on an income adjusted basis. Both linear and quadratic relationships are tried Logarithmic the line Our method ensures symmetry in that values that are. the largest increase in rank are South Africa up 32 places to are in order South Africa Malaysia and Brazil data for public. models performed less well Given the tenfold range in GDP half what is expected at a given level of GDP per capita have. 9th India up 28 places to 11th Serbia up 27 places to first and institutions only Next in rank are the United Kingdom the United. per capita across our 50 countries values for countries at the the same influence as values that are double those expected By. China up 25 places to 19th At the top end of the income range States Sweden and India. very top and bottom ends of the income range show some construction our calculated deviations lie in the range 200 per. Singapore falls from third to 32nd and the United States from. sensitivity to functional form The values of all but one of our 19 cent to 200 per cent The average deviation for each module is. sixth to 17th Research expenditure in higher education as a share of GDP. variables in the Resources Connectivity and Output modules a weighted sum of the deviations for each of the measures within. increases with GDP per capita but at a declining rate The. increase significantly with GDP per head the only exception is the module The method of measuring deviations needs to be. Turning to the four variables that are included in the Resources quadratic regression estimates imply that at GDP per capita of. the unemployment variable O9 The coefficient on the quadratic borne in mind when interpreting the weighted average numerical. module government expenditure and total expenditure on USD25 000 the expected expenditure on R D is 0 31 per cent. term was always negative implying some tapering of increases scores for each module and for the overall ranking. higher education show only slight increases as a share of GDP of GDP whereas the corresponding figure at GDP per capita. at high levels of GDP per capita, as income levels rise For each ten thousand dollar increase in of USD50 000 is 0 57 The top eight countries for research. We use the same dependent variables and weights as described. GDP per capita government expenditure is estimated to increase expenditure as a share of GDP are now Serbia South Africa. The fitted equation gives the expected value of a variable for in section 3 with two exceptions The exceptions are research. by only 0 06 per cent of GDP and total expenditure by 0 08 per Denmark Portugal Sweden Switzerland Finland and Turkey. a nation s level of income The difference between the actual expenditure R4 and R5 and publication output O1 and O2. and expected value will be positive or negative depending on where in each case we had a measure expressed in two different. whether a country performs above or below the expected value forms This becomes unnecessary when we control for differences. In the few cases where data are missing we assume that the in income levels We delete R5 and move the weight to R4 so that. 5 2 Environment, variable takes the expected value for that country s level of GDP each of the four measures of Resources has a weight of 5 per cent. per capita that is we assume a deviation value of zero For the in the overall ranking In the output module we use as a single. two Output variables based on the Shanghai rankings O4 and publication measure the number of articles divided by total. O5 the presence of zero values limits the use of regression so GDP thus combining O1 and O2 the weights are added. In principle the creation of a favourable environment is independent The scores for the top four countries the United States Australia. of income levels so we do not carry out regression analysis New Zealand and Singapore are around 20 per cent above. Instead we use mean values for expected values and calculate the expected values. percentage deviation from expected as was done in other modules. The rankings are necessarily very like those for the unadjusted data. 20 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 21. 5 3 Connectivity 5 5 Overall Ranking, All five connectivity measures are positively related to levels of Arabia and Singapore all fall by around 20 places The overall score is calculated by weighting the percentage improve their ranking by more than ten places Serbia South. GDP per head For all but joint international publications C2 the deviations for each module using the same weights as for the Africa and India improve by more than 20 places The countries. R2 values are in the range 0 37 to 0 55 The relationship between The equation for international co authorship C2 implies that unadjusted data Resources 20 Environment 20 Connectivity that improve by between eleven and twenty places are Brazil. joint international publications and GDP while significant is for each USD10 000 increase in GDP per capita the percentage 20 and Output 40 The median aggregate score is minus China Greece Iran Portugal and Ukraine. weaker than in last year s ranking Recall that a different data of articles that have an international co author increase by 8 6 per cent so that a score above this level can be interpreted as. source is used this year The top five countries for Connectivity approximately 4 percentage points The top three countries are being above average for the 50 countries we consider The largest fall in rank compared with the Section 3 results is that. after adjusting for income levels are in rank order Ukraine Chile Saudi Arabia and South Africa unchanged from the 2017 of Saudi Arabia The United States is measured as performing. the United Kingdom New Zealand Austria and Switzerland rankings despite the change in data source The top ranked countries after allowing for income levels are above expected values but nevertheless falls to 15th position. Compared with the unadjusted data it is of course lower income Finland and the United Kingdom where the scores imply on similarly Singapore the country with the with the highest income. countries that show the greatest improvement in rank In addition Knowledge transfer is rated most highly by business C5 in Israel overall performance of 20 per cent above the average level of levels now ranks only 21st Ireland falls substantially in rank to. to Ukraine four countries increase their rank by around 20 places Malaysia and China Joint publications with industry are ranked achievement for countries at their income levels Next in rank 36th but this is heavily influenced by its high GDP per capita. South Africa to 10th Serbia to 16th Brazil to 22nd and India highest in Ukraine Hungary Indonesia and South Africa after order are Serbia Denmark Sweden Portugal Switzerland and measured in purchasing power parity it is the third highest. to 26th Conversely at the high income end Norway Saudi allowing for levels of income South Africa among our 50 countries Given the large number of foreign. companies in Ireland Gross National Income would probably be. Compared with the original rankings in Section 3 nine countries a more appropriate measure than Gross Domestic Product. 5 4 Output, All but one of the Output measures unemployment O9 show Turning to the components the top seven countries for. a significant increase with levels of GDP per capita but for most publications measured as the number of research documents. measures the increase flattens out at high income levels Two deflated by total GDP are now Serbia Portugal Singapore. Output measures show a particularly strong relationship with Slovenia Denmark Australia and India After adjusting for. GDP per capita R2 0 6 impact as measured by citations differences in income levels the impact of publications O3 is. O3 and researchers per head of population O8 The impact highest for South Africa India the United Kingdom Italy and. measure picks up not only the quality of research but its nature Switzerland China the United States and the United Kingdom are. applied research in developing countries is less likely to be highly ranked at the top for the quality of the best three universities next. referenced despite its relevance for economic development in rank order are Russia and Brazil. The top five ranked countries for Output are Serbia Israel After allowing for income levels Ukraine is ranked first on. Portugal Israel Greece and the United Kingdom For these participation rates O6 followed by Greece Turkey Chile. countries Output is more than 25 per cent above expected Argentina and Korea Ukraine also comes first on tertiary. values for their levels of income Compared with the unadjusted qualifications of the workforce O7 followed in rank order by. rankings Serbia s rank increases by 44 places the ranks of Iran Russia Israel Canada Japan and Korea Serbia and Israel are. Greece Portugal and South Africa improve by between 20 and first for researchers per head of population next in rank are. 30 places and the ranks of Brazil Chile China and India increase Korea Finland Denmark Sweden and China. by between 10 and 20 places The United States falls 14 places to. 15th and similar falls in rank are recorded for Ireland Germany. Japan and Saudi Arabia, 22 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 23. Rank Resources Dev Environment Dev Connectivity Dev Output Dev. 1 Serbia 39 1 United States 26 1 Ukraine 58 4 Serbia 37 5. New Zealand,United Kingdom,New Zealand,National Rankings Controlling for. Switzerland,United Kingdom,Level of Economic Development. 6 Canada 24 9 Hong Kong SAR 13 8 Finland 24 4 Denmark 18 8. 6 Denmark 22 5 United Kingdom 13 7 Hungary 21 3 Australia 17 8. 8 Saudi Arabia 21 0 Netherlands 12 4 Denmark 17 3 Finland 17 5. 9 South Africa 19 0 Taiwan China 12 1 Netherlands 17 0 South Africa 16 2. 10 Turkey 17 7 Belgium 9 6 South Africa 16 6 China 15 0. 11 India 17 3 Switzerland 7 4 Belgium 14 0 Sweden 13 9. 12 Austria 17 0 Sweden 6 8 Sweden 11 4 Switzerland 11 1. 13 Brazil 14 6 China 5 1 Czech Republic 9 9 Canada 9 2. 14 Switzerland 11 3 Canada 5 0 Canada 5 4 New Zealand 6 4. 15 Portugal 8 6 Malaysia 4 3 Australia 5 1 United States 4 9. 16 Netherlands 6 8 Poland 4 2 Serbia 4 6 Netherlands 4 9. 17 United States 1 5 Norway 3 9 Portugal 3 6 Belgium 2 9. 18 Belgium 0 5 Ireland 3 8 Greece 3 0 Singapore 1 2. 19 China 0 9 Israel 3 5 Bulgaria 2 1 Slovenia 0 9 Serbia. 20 France 0 9 Chile 1 8 Germany 1 9 France 1 7 States. 21 Norway 1 2 Denmark 1 6 France 0 4 Brazil 2 5,22 Israel 1 4 France 1 1 Brazil 0 4 Iran 3 3. 23 Mexico 1 5 Austria 1 0 Israel 6 4 Chile 3 8, 24 Greece 2 1 Japan 0 7 United States 9 3 Poland 6 3. 25 New Zealand 3 9 South Africa 0 7 Slovenia 9 6 Spain 8 3. 26 Australia 4 4 Mexico 1 8 India 11 2 Italy 11 5, 27 Poland 4 7 Germany 2 0 Slovakia 11 6 Norway 12 7. 28 Korea 5 3 Thailand 2 1 Romania 15 2 Korea 13 7 Serbia. 29 Slovakia 5 8 Russia 2 2 Thailand 16 3 Czech Republic 14 2. 30 United Kingdom 6 0 Indonesia 3 0 Ireland 16 6 India 16 0. 31 Czech Republic 6 7 Spain 4 4 Singapore 19 3 Germany 18 2. 32 Singapore 9 3 Czech Republic 4 6 Italy 19 4 Austria 20 1. 33 Germany 12 2 Argentina 4 9 Hong Kong SAR 20 4 Malaysia 21 7. 34 Hong Kong SAR 13 7 Romania 5 0 Taiwan China 21 5 Ireland 23 7. 35 Spain 16 5 Portugal 6 2 Spain 22 7 Hong Kong SAR 26 6. 36 Japan 19 2 Slovenia 7 0 Malaysia 23 1 Argentina 27 2. 37 Iran 19 7 Ukraine 8 9 China 25 0 Japan 29 9, 38 Argentina 19 9 Italy 9 7 Norway 26 0 Russia 33 1. 39 Chile 21 9 Slovakia 13 8 Japan 30 1 Taiwan China 34 5. 40 Croatia 22 3 Iran 14 4 Poland 34 2 Turkey 39 0,Resources Environment Connectivity Output. 41 Slovenia 22 4 Brazil 17 5 Indonesia 34 6 Croatia 42 0. Serbia Rank 1 United States Rank 1 Ukraine Rank 1 Serbia Rank 1. 42 Italy 29 6 Korea 17 6 Chile 40 8 Bulgaria 47 6, 43 Thailand 35 0 Hungary 18 0 Korea 44 0 Ukraine 47 9. 44 Romania 35 1 Bulgaria 18 6 Croatia 45 1 Hungary 52 9. 45 Taiwan China 37 8 Saudi Arabia 19 5 Russia 49 5 Slovakia 56 2. 46 Russia 39 0 India 19 7 Argentina 58 9 Thailand 61 2. Saudi Arabia,Saudi Arabia,Top National Rankings for Modules Controlling. for Level of Economic Development, dev percentage deviation from expected value at nation s level of GDP per capita. 24 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 25. Below Below, Overall Ranking Controlling for Top 5 Ranking Controlling for. Level of Economic Development Level of Economic Development. Rank Country Score Rank Country Score Rank Country Score. 1 Finland 20 2 18 China 1 8 35 Japan 21 7, 2 United Kingdom 18 7 19 France 0 6 36 Ireland 22 8. 3 Serbia 17 4 20 Brazil 1 6 37 Iran 22 9, 4 Denmark 15 8 21 Singapore 2 0 38 Taiwan China 23 3. 5 Sweden 14 4 22 Ukraine 3 4 39 Argentina 27 6,6 Portugal 14 3 23 Malaysia 4 9 40 Slovakia 28 7. 7 Switzerland 13 6 24 Czech Republic 6 0 41 Hungary 29 0. 8 South Africa 13 4 25 Slovenia 8 1 42 Turkey 31 1 Finland Rank 1. 9 Israel 12 7 26 India 9 1 43 Russia 31 4,United Kingdom Rank 2. 10 New Zealand 12 4 27 Poland 9 4 44 Bulgaria 33 2. Serbia Rank 3,11 Australia 11 3 28 Norway 9 7 45 Thailand 35 2. 12 Canada 10 8 29 Germany 9 7 46 Croatia 36 0 Denmark Rank 4. 13 Netherlands 9 2 30 Spain 12 0 47 Romania 36 3,Sweden Rank 5. 14 Belgium 5 8 31 Chile 13 7 48 Saudi Arabia 44 3, 15 United States 5 6 32 Hong Kong SAR 14 7 49 Mexico 46 4. 16 Austria 1 9 33 Italy 16 3 50 Indonesia 70 9,17 Greece 1 8 34 Korea 18 9. dev percentage deviation from expected value at nation s level of GDP per capita. 26 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 27. 6 Using the findings to 6 2 Research Output,improve performance. Ranking provides a valuable indication of how a country our variables which can throw light on what makes a good higher Quantity Does concentration of research in selected institutions matter. benchmarks against other countries in a range of measures But education system Moreover we can use our seven years of data As expected there is a strong positive relationship between In the absence of appropriate data on research funding we. we can go further than this and look at the relationships between to explore lagged responses to change research expenditure and publications albeit the effect tails define concentration as the percentage of research output that is. off a little at high levels of expenditure Regressing publications produced by the top 10 per cent of tertiary institutions Incites data. per capita O2 on research expenditure per capita R5 and its is again used for 2016 Institutions with less than 100 publications. square we find that the best explanation is obtained by using are excluded For countries with fewer than ten institutions the. research expenditure from our 2015 rankings This implies an share of the top university is calculated for between ten and less. 6 1 Aggregate Relationships average lag of four years between an increase in research. funding and publications The actual data relate to 2016 for. than 20 institutions we take the top 2 and so on The median level. of publications attributable to the top ten per cent of institutions. publications and 2012 for funding Funding levels explain 86 per is 43 1 per cent The performance of each country is as follows in. cent of the country differences in research publications But some rank order. Of our four modules two are inputs Resources and Environment weighted towards 2014 taking all data from the current ranking countries do very much better than expected If we look at the. and two measure outcomes Output and Connectivity has an inbuilt lag of two years We explore the lagged behaviour 25 countries that are ranked highest for publications per head 60 Slovenia Saudi Arabia Croatia Serbia. The relationship between inputs and outcomes provides an further by using in turn the Resources scores for each year of population six countries perform at more than 20 per cent. 50 60 Portugal Norway Bulgaria Mexico Brazil China. indicator of the efficiency of systems Outcomes are measured of previous rankings The results are not especially sensitive above expected Australia Portugal New Zealand Slovenia and. Argentina Belgium France USA, by combining the scores for Resources and Connectivity using to the choice of the lagged value for Resources but the best the United Kingdom On the other hand Germany and Austria. the same weights as before There is a need to recognise that fit is obtained by using the values from the 2016 ranking data fall more than 20 per cent below expected values Factors that 40 50 Japan UK Canada Sweden India Ireland Chile. there will be a lag between an increase in Resources and an for 2012 an average lag of four years between an increase can cause divergence between funding and publications include Russia Thailand Taiwan China Indonesia Korea Australia. improvement in Outcomes Because the Outcomes data relate in Resources and subsequent improvements in Outcomes The the areas of research the importance of performance based Iran Slovakia Israel Greece. primarily to 2016 whereas the data for Resources are heavily estimated equation with standard errors in parentheses is funding the source of research funds and whether government. 30 40 Malaysia Hungary South Africa Spain Czech, research funds are concentrated on selected institutions. Republic Singapore Turkey Switzerland Italy Denmark. 2 Poland New Zealand Romania Austria Finland Germany. Outcomes 27 79 0 593 Resources 4 0 573 Environment R 0 741 n 50 countries Quality Impact. 10 59 0 079 0 157, There is a relatively strong positive relationship between the 30 Hong Kong SAR Netherlands Ukraine. number of articles published O1 and their average impact as. Both Resources and Environment exert a significant effect on 2 0 but the explanatory power of the equation is reduced R2 measures by standardized citations O3 correlation coefficient of To test for the influence of this measure of research concentration. outcomes and together they explain 74 per cent of the variation 0 695 This implies that while financial autonomy matters 0 845 It follows that impact can also be increased by the same we add it to research expenditure as a potential explanation of. in Outcomes The point estimates imply that for each 1 point other features of the higher education environment such as the means as output through research funding But another factor research publications It does exert a positive effect on national. increase in the Resources score the Outcomes score increases monitoring of standards E4 2 are also important that may increase the impact of research is joint publication with publications but the coefficient is not statistically significant at. by 0 59 the corresponding effect for Environment is 0 57 The international authors In this way research programs are more conventional levels t value is 0 9 Our concentration measure. general conclusion is that Resources and the policy Environment Lagged effects will be picked up more precisely for subsets of immediately known in more than one country Our data confirm fails to explain differences in the number of research publications. are both key factors determining outcomes and they are roughly measures The time intervals between increases in inputs and this hypothesis the correlation between impact O3 and joint We note that several smaller western European countries have. of equal importance resultant increases in outcomes will vary greatly with the type of international authorship C2 is 0 64 0 69 if the United States is low concentration ratios but most institutions are relatively well. outcome For example the lag between an increase in resources excluded There is also a similar positive correlation between funded. Several commentators have emphasised the desirability of and the full effect on the percentage of the work force with a impact and joint scientific research with industry r 0 64. institutional financial autonomy If the aggregate measure of the tertiary qualification will be measured in decades In the next. Environment is replaced by such a measure E4 3 the coefficient sub section we look at the lag between an increase in research. is positive and significant coefficient of 0 150 with a t value of funding and an increase in publications. 28 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 U21 Ranking of National Higher Educational Systems 2018 29.
28-May-2020 4 Views 44 Pages
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For their assistance providing data, background information and expertise, the authors are grateful to members of the PIN Panel and Steering Group.
28-May-2020 7 Views 9 Pages
connection (Wi-Fi, Ethernet) and whatever the protocol of the sensors (Wi-Fi, ZigBee, Bluetooth, Ethernet ...). The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes some related works, and Section 3 explains some characteristics of IoT platform. Section 4 discusses the architecture of IoT healthcare system. Section 5 shows the
28-May-2020 10 Views 49 Pages
2) University Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) Committee (2016-2018) 3) University Mentor Ring Program (2015-2017) 4) College of Engineering Leadership Review Committee (2015-2016) 5) University Lifelong Faculty Involvement Committee (2015-2018) 6) University Diversity Advisory Committee (UDAC) (2014-2016) 7) University Faculty Liaison (OIED) (2014-2016) 8) College of Engineering ...
28-May-2020 6 Views 6 Pages
tool illustration tool material Guhring no. standard type surface cutting direction diameter range Stub drills solid carbide 730 din 6539 n rh 0,500 - 16,000
28-May-2020 5 Views 15 Pages
Radiological diagnosis of dialysis-associated complications ... email@example.com R. Bernt e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org J. Haller e-mail: email@example.com
28-May-2020 7 Views 19 Pages
Advanced Laser Materials Processing Edited b ieter Scucer and eorge Scucer 4 The beam quality of diode lasers developed remarkably in the last decade allowing their usage for deep-penetration welding and for the even more demanding metal-cutting. This development makes these highly efficient and compact devices direct competitors of CO 2 and
28-May-2020 5 Views 16 Pages
strength compared to mechanical processes. Also, laser processing uses no water, oil or chemicals and leaves no particle or artifact on the sheets. This ensures high yield and less process steps. The range of materials and cutting tasks has led to a variety of processes such deposited on top of the part and the next laser processing step begins.
28-May-2020 5 Views 24 Pages
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Internal Audit Report - Follow Up to Audit of Non-personnel Services and Supplies Expenditures of District 2 (77503 : Internal . 18.a Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Internal Audit Report - Follow Up to Audit of Non-personnel Services and Supplies Expenditures of District 2 (77503 : Internal. 18.a Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Internal Audit Report - Follow Up to Audit of ...
28-May-2020 8 Views 8 Pages
(f) Depreciation expense 1 269 1 204 1 173 (g) Advertising & sales promotion expenses 5062 2 993 5 323 (h) Other expenses 12 687 7 001 8926 Total exoenses 45059 33 268 36 588 5 Profit before tax (3-4} 1 580 13 616 5 245 6 Tax expense (a) Current tax 593 5400 1 846 (b) Deferred tax 13 ( 560) ( 63)
28-May-2020 9 Views 12 Pages
clearance prior to participation in the LIVESTRONG at the YMCA program. By completing the form below, you are not assuming any responsibility for our administration of the fitness assessment or exercise program. If you know of any medical or other reasons why participation in the LIVESTRONG at the YMCA program would be unwise for your patient,