Since 2004, the Ranking Web (or Webometrics Ranking) is published twice a year (data is collected during the first weeks of January and July for being public at the end of both months), covering about 20,000 Higher Education Institutions worldwide.
Click link below for more info:
www.webometrics.info/about_rank.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Three Key Lessons from Going Green on Campus
The path to a cleaner, healthier campus begins in the classroom, office and dorm room. Across Harvard's 12-plus schools and administrative units we are building a culture of sustainability in partnership with our students, staff and faculty. We hope the innovative and creative approaches, programs and projects put into place by our community will serve as a replicable model for change at other large, complex institutions including universities, businesses and government. We also hope to inspire our students, future global contributors and leaders to incorporate sustainability into their lives and professional endeavors.
We have found that a commitment to creating a sustainable community directly ties into our academic and research mission and it also helps our bottom line. Energy efficiency measures and green building techniques are saving us millions in utility costs per year, often with a relatively short payback. Beyond fiscal savings there are other significant benefits such as improved operations efficiencies, improved productivity, health benefits and a more engaged, collaborative community. We also work to constantly evolve our efforts based on feedback from the community and the experience of our peer academic institutions and increasingly other sectors.
Said Harvard University President Drew Faust, "As a university we have a special responsibility to address complex global problems, like climate change and environmental sustainability, both with academics and research but also by turning the findings of that research into action."
As part of this effort we struggle with the same questions many others do. How do we keep people engaged? How do we ensure we're on the cutting edge? Several key lessons have emerged that we keep in mind and I'd like to share with others working on sustainability initiatives (and hear your ideas too):
Strong Leadership That Sets Clear, Aggressive Goals. Harvard's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2016, including growth unified our schools and units, requiring them to focus on very specific energy reduction targets. This goal was adopted by our senior leadership--President Faust and all of our deans, which has aligned the university in pursuit of this goal. In addition, our comprehensive Green Building Standards set clear energy reduction, resource conservation and LEED targets for all construction and renovation projects. As a result, Harvard saves over $9 million annually just from the over 800 energy conservation measures that have already been implemented in order to reduce emissions and save energy.
Engage the Entire Community. The Harvard Office for Sustainability acts as a centralized catalyst for change, facilitating opportunities for students, faculty and staff to come together to learn from each other and share best practices that makes us all stronger. The office led a strategic planning process for Harvard's GHG reduction goal that engaged over 200 faculty, students and staff from every level of our organization. Every major policy change or initiative is reviewed and approved by representatives from all our schools and units, giving everyone a say in the ultimate outcome. Likewise, our Green Building Standards require that occupants be engaged earlier in project development so that future design considerations and decisions include their concerns, feedback and ideas. We also create training and provide information about sustainable building operations for occupants upon move-in. And Harvard's annual Green Carpet Awards ceremony was created in 2009 as an opportunity for our entire community to nominate, recognize and celebrate our "green heroes"--the students, staff and faculty who play an exemplary role in helping Harvard achieve its sustainability goals.
Tools and Resources That Spark Action. Harvard has focused on developing tools and resources to empower our community to take action. A four-tiered Green Office Program encourages employees to conserve resources by providing them with tips and guidelines in nine topic or impact locations. This program also ties to our Green Teams--individuals who adopt green practices in their departments and units. A Life Cycle Costing calculator was created with input from administrators and facilities across the university to allow schools and project managers to prioritize building projects that are economically viable and environmentally beneficial. Our website -- www.green.harvard.edu -- is a university-wide resource providing stories and profiles of best practices, including LEED case studies, so the community can learn from each other.
At the end of the day the foundation for all of our work is our people -- from President Faust and the deans, to the facility directors, building managers and project managers at all of our schools and on to the faculty, students, and staff who work, live and learn in our greener, healthier buildings. Without action and involvement from everyone in our community our progress would not be possible. And that is perhaps the most important lesson for us all to remember -- you are only as strong as your people and your success depends on the level to which you empower and engage your entire community.
by Heather Henriksen, Director, Harvard Office for Sustainability
We have found that a commitment to creating a sustainable community directly ties into our academic and research mission and it also helps our bottom line. Energy efficiency measures and green building techniques are saving us millions in utility costs per year, often with a relatively short payback. Beyond fiscal savings there are other significant benefits such as improved operations efficiencies, improved productivity, health benefits and a more engaged, collaborative community. We also work to constantly evolve our efforts based on feedback from the community and the experience of our peer academic institutions and increasingly other sectors.
Said Harvard University President Drew Faust, "As a university we have a special responsibility to address complex global problems, like climate change and environmental sustainability, both with academics and research but also by turning the findings of that research into action."
As part of this effort we struggle with the same questions many others do. How do we keep people engaged? How do we ensure we're on the cutting edge? Several key lessons have emerged that we keep in mind and I'd like to share with others working on sustainability initiatives (and hear your ideas too):
Strong Leadership That Sets Clear, Aggressive Goals. Harvard's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2016, including growth unified our schools and units, requiring them to focus on very specific energy reduction targets. This goal was adopted by our senior leadership--President Faust and all of our deans, which has aligned the university in pursuit of this goal. In addition, our comprehensive Green Building Standards set clear energy reduction, resource conservation and LEED targets for all construction and renovation projects. As a result, Harvard saves over $9 million annually just from the over 800 energy conservation measures that have already been implemented in order to reduce emissions and save energy.
Engage the Entire Community. The Harvard Office for Sustainability acts as a centralized catalyst for change, facilitating opportunities for students, faculty and staff to come together to learn from each other and share best practices that makes us all stronger. The office led a strategic planning process for Harvard's GHG reduction goal that engaged over 200 faculty, students and staff from every level of our organization. Every major policy change or initiative is reviewed and approved by representatives from all our schools and units, giving everyone a say in the ultimate outcome. Likewise, our Green Building Standards require that occupants be engaged earlier in project development so that future design considerations and decisions include their concerns, feedback and ideas. We also create training and provide information about sustainable building operations for occupants upon move-in. And Harvard's annual Green Carpet Awards ceremony was created in 2009 as an opportunity for our entire community to nominate, recognize and celebrate our "green heroes"--the students, staff and faculty who play an exemplary role in helping Harvard achieve its sustainability goals.
Tools and Resources That Spark Action. Harvard has focused on developing tools and resources to empower our community to take action. A four-tiered Green Office Program encourages employees to conserve resources by providing them with tips and guidelines in nine topic or impact locations. This program also ties to our Green Teams--individuals who adopt green practices in their departments and units. A Life Cycle Costing calculator was created with input from administrators and facilities across the university to allow schools and project managers to prioritize building projects that are economically viable and environmentally beneficial. Our website -- www.green.harvard.edu -- is a university-wide resource providing stories and profiles of best practices, including LEED case studies, so the community can learn from each other.
At the end of the day the foundation for all of our work is our people -- from President Faust and the deans, to the facility directors, building managers and project managers at all of our schools and on to the faculty, students, and staff who work, live and learn in our greener, healthier buildings. Without action and involvement from everyone in our community our progress would not be possible. And that is perhaps the most important lesson for us all to remember -- you are only as strong as your people and your success depends on the level to which you empower and engage your entire community.
by Heather Henriksen, Director, Harvard Office for Sustainability
Monday, January 2, 2012
Prediction for 2012: Continued U.S. Decline in Education
About this time a year ago, Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, lamented the nation’s lackluster performance results in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. Every three years, PISA measures reading, math, and scientific literacy among 15-year-old students around the world. According to Duncan, PISA “is fast becoming the measuring rod by which countries track trends in national performance and assess college and career-readiness of students as they near the end of their compulsory education and prepare to participate in the global economy.”
Duncan eagerly awaited the results, but was sorely disappointed when they came in. It turns out that the U.S. is not among any of the top performing countries in any subject areas tested by PISA. U.S. students lag behind kids in Canada, Finland, South Korea, Estonia, Japan, Australia, Singapore, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, and other countries. In reading, a category where U.S. students performed their best, they are tied with Poland (insert Polish joke here). The U.S. reading scores are closer to those of Latvia and Slovenia than neighboring Canada, where their students are better readers and more adept in math and science. That data is quite revealing: Students in the U.S. are less capable in accessing and retrieving data than those in some developing countries, and U.S. students struggle in interpreting and integrating information.
Some commentators immediately suggested that socio-economics pulled down the U.S. scores. In other words, poor kids from under-performing schools created an imbalance, which hurt the overall U.S. outcome. Some of this is racialized (i.e. pundits claim “poor black kids can’t read well and under-perform in math and science”). In part, that’s true, though clearly such generalities are over-inclusive and ignore what contributes to low student performance. Social promotion, including graduating students from high school without a 6th grade reading capacity, moving students along because they’re too old to be in elementary or middle school, high rates of mobility, and low verbal capacity upon entering first grade, are among the pitfalls and challenges in public education that undermine student success as well as the academic health of school districts. Typically there’s the debate as to who’s at fault—parents or teachers. Blame can be leveled at both groups, but let’s not overlook politicians who want to cut funding for education.
That said, pundits who blame poor, black public-school kids for these results miss the mark. Results from a different study conducted by an independent research firm debunk the notion that it’s the U.S. poor (alone) who drag down education. The 2009 Raytheon study sheds some insight on student behavior. For example, “seventy‐two percent of U.S. middle school students spend more than three hours each day outside of school in front of a TV, mobile phone or computer screen rather than doing homework or other academic‐related activities.” The study noted, “by contrast, just 10 percent of students spend the same amount of time on their homework each day, and 67 percent spend less than one hour on their math homework.”
Indeed, nearly 30 percent of the students surveyed could not name a career that requires math skills. This was not an inner-city survey. This is the state of “middle” America.
The US is in an academic crisis, but parents and their children don’t seem to know this. US students had more self-confidence in their knowledge and academic skills than nearly all other students in all the other countries included in the PISA study (about 64 nations and territories). The inflated notion of self is despite the fact that more U.S. students performed at a level “considered to be below the baseline level of reading proficiency needed to participate effectively and productively in life” than at the highest level. Urgent change is needed, but the problems will likely persist.
Indeed, what we witness in high-school performance now seeps into collegiate and graduate school aptitude and attitude. For example, universities seem as ill-equipped to address these issues as K-12 schools. Here, I’m not speaking of providing academic support centers. The students at the very bottom of the class likely realize their struggles with reading and math proficiency. It’s the middle group that poses the biggest challenge, particularly as they have been nurtured to believe that they are the best and the brightest.
This toxic mixture of overconfidence and under-performance has contributed to “limited learning” at college, according to Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. In their book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, the authors found that “in the first two years of school, 45 percent of college students had no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.”
On examination, it becomes clear that American students don’t buckle up when coming to college; instead, poor study habits follow—or perhaps worsen post-high school. In the Arum and Roksa study of more than 2,300 students, they found that U.S. students study about 12 hours per week, which is less than half of the hours college students devoted to studying in 1961. Graduate and professional schools are headed in the same direction, trading high academic standards and sometimes uncomfortable truths for appeasing students who pay high tuition.
This entry was posted in Higher Education, teaching, Uncategorized.
Duncan eagerly awaited the results, but was sorely disappointed when they came in. It turns out that the U.S. is not among any of the top performing countries in any subject areas tested by PISA. U.S. students lag behind kids in Canada, Finland, South Korea, Estonia, Japan, Australia, Singapore, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, and other countries. In reading, a category where U.S. students performed their best, they are tied with Poland (insert Polish joke here). The U.S. reading scores are closer to those of Latvia and Slovenia than neighboring Canada, where their students are better readers and more adept in math and science. That data is quite revealing: Students in the U.S. are less capable in accessing and retrieving data than those in some developing countries, and U.S. students struggle in interpreting and integrating information.
Some commentators immediately suggested that socio-economics pulled down the U.S. scores. In other words, poor kids from under-performing schools created an imbalance, which hurt the overall U.S. outcome. Some of this is racialized (i.e. pundits claim “poor black kids can’t read well and under-perform in math and science”). In part, that’s true, though clearly such generalities are over-inclusive and ignore what contributes to low student performance. Social promotion, including graduating students from high school without a 6th grade reading capacity, moving students along because they’re too old to be in elementary or middle school, high rates of mobility, and low verbal capacity upon entering first grade, are among the pitfalls and challenges in public education that undermine student success as well as the academic health of school districts. Typically there’s the debate as to who’s at fault—parents or teachers. Blame can be leveled at both groups, but let’s not overlook politicians who want to cut funding for education.
That said, pundits who blame poor, black public-school kids for these results miss the mark. Results from a different study conducted by an independent research firm debunk the notion that it’s the U.S. poor (alone) who drag down education. The 2009 Raytheon study sheds some insight on student behavior. For example, “seventy‐two percent of U.S. middle school students spend more than three hours each day outside of school in front of a TV, mobile phone or computer screen rather than doing homework or other academic‐related activities.” The study noted, “by contrast, just 10 percent of students spend the same amount of time on their homework each day, and 67 percent spend less than one hour on their math homework.”
Indeed, nearly 30 percent of the students surveyed could not name a career that requires math skills. This was not an inner-city survey. This is the state of “middle” America.
The US is in an academic crisis, but parents and their children don’t seem to know this. US students had more self-confidence in their knowledge and academic skills than nearly all other students in all the other countries included in the PISA study (about 64 nations and territories). The inflated notion of self is despite the fact that more U.S. students performed at a level “considered to be below the baseline level of reading proficiency needed to participate effectively and productively in life” than at the highest level. Urgent change is needed, but the problems will likely persist.
Indeed, what we witness in high-school performance now seeps into collegiate and graduate school aptitude and attitude. For example, universities seem as ill-equipped to address these issues as K-12 schools. Here, I’m not speaking of providing academic support centers. The students at the very bottom of the class likely realize their struggles with reading and math proficiency. It’s the middle group that poses the biggest challenge, particularly as they have been nurtured to believe that they are the best and the brightest.
This toxic mixture of overconfidence and under-performance has contributed to “limited learning” at college, according to Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. In their book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, the authors found that “in the first two years of school, 45 percent of college students had no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.”
On examination, it becomes clear that American students don’t buckle up when coming to college; instead, poor study habits follow—or perhaps worsen post-high school. In the Arum and Roksa study of more than 2,300 students, they found that U.S. students study about 12 hours per week, which is less than half of the hours college students devoted to studying in 1961. Graduate and professional schools are headed in the same direction, trading high academic standards and sometimes uncomfortable truths for appeasing students who pay high tuition.
This entry was posted in Higher Education, teaching, Uncategorized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
