Harvard University has replaced the University of Cambridge at the top of a global ranking that measures how universities perform on graduate employability.
The list is dominated by US institutions which claim seven of the top 10 spots and 39 places in the overall top 150. After the UK and the US, France is the most-represented country in the table with 10 institutions, including three in the top 25.
It seems that nearly every major media publication in the United States these days wants to rank colleges. The only thing they all seem to have in common is that they’re imperfect.
One problem with even the best rankings is that in the end you’re limited to what data is available and the data is somewhat sparse.
Earnings, for example, are certainly of relevance to students but there’s more to life than earnings. The primary purpose of schools is to find opportunities of learning. And there’s no measure for that—at least not yet.
Many people widely assume prestigious colleges and universities provide the best quality education. But what if the richest and best-known colleges and universities don't provide the highest-quality education?
Researchers at Teachers College of Columbia University and at Yeshiva University believe they are developing a legitimate way to compare the educational quality of courses across institutions -- and their preliminary findings suggest that teaching quality and academic rigor are not necessarily stronger at prestigious institutions.
A new education consultancy formed by "disruptors" based in Silicon Valley is proposing a new model for assessing educational quality.
The model, from Entangled Solutions, calls for evaluating traditional institutions and other education providers based on students’ opinions of the programs once they’ve left, and on "valid, reliable, and appropriate" tests of student learning.
The European Union remained world leader with a 22.2% share of researchers. In total, 72% of the world’s researchers can still be found in the European Union, China, Russia, the United States and Japan.
Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer at Microsoft Corp., and Matt Ridley, a journalist and author, debate the role of basic science, practical tinkering, patents and Nobel Prizes in the development of new technologies.
In his recent essay “The Myth of Basic Science”, Matt Ridley argues that technological growth owes little to basic scientific research. In response, Myhrvold says that basic science isn’t a myth—it is the foundation of the modern world.
65 percent of today’s grade school kids will end up doing work that has yet to be invented and the best chance of preparing young people for decent paying jobs in the decades ahead is helping them develop the skills to solve complex tasks.
What are these skills exactly? ‘Foundational Literacies’: reading, writing, sciences, along with more practical skills like financial literacy; ‘Competencies’: often referred to as the 4Cs — critical thinking, creativity, communication and collaboration; and ‘Character Qualities’ such as curiosity, persistence, adaptability and leadership.
Growth in the technology sector has popularized a dangerously narrow conception of innovation. This new culture obsessed with data and technology is ignoring the key source of everyday innovation: workers.
The design of these data-driven systems does not start with a vision of empowering workers to innovate with data, but of “disrupting” how they work. But if we want economic growth, we should learn how to design technologies that help workers make everyday innovations.
After a long and successful run, the theory of disruptive innovation has come under attack of late. In particular, the Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation. Disruptive innovation is a parsimonious theory that explains many business failures. But not all.
But the bottom line is this: No single theory, not even one as elegant as disruptive innovation, can explain everything. That was never Christensen’s intent. And it is certainly not his fault that disruption has become a buzzword synonymous with “change.”
Disrupt: (verb dis·rupt \dis-ˈrəpt\) to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way; to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something).
Surely leaders should do the reverse, providing a steady hand on the tiller and guiding their teams to consistent and predictable victories. That's been the formula for organizational success for decades, but not any more. Here's how the best leaders reconcile the two.
Educational Innovation Weekly Reviewis curated by Tecnológico de Monterrey's Observatory of Educational Innovation. With the highlights of the week on innovation, technology and education. If you require more information about a specific note, please email us: email@example.com. TECNOLÓGICO DE MONTERREY, 2015.
Observatory of Educational Innovation
Tecnológico de Monterrey's Observatory of Educational Innovation: We identify and analyze the educational innovation trends that are shaping the future of learning and education.
Tecnológico de Monterrey | Av Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey, NL, México