Iata cele mai importante sfaturi despre cum sa iti cresti, corect, animalele de companie, in direct, la BZI LIVE, alaturi de unul dintre cei mai cunoscuti medici veterinari din Romania
Joi, 21 februarie, in direct la BZI LIVE, o noua emisiune de impact national, alaturi de prof. univ. dr. ing. Gheorghe Solcan, profesor in cadrul Universitatii de Stiinte Agronomice și Medicina Veterinara (USAMV), unul dintre cei mai importanti si renumiti medici veterinaridin Romania. In cadrul emisiunii BZI LIVE, reputatul medic veterinar va oferi sfaturi extrem de importante pentru toti cei care au animale de companie. Cum ai grija, corect, de pisica ta! Cele mai comune probleme cu care ne intalnim atunci cand avem animale in casa. Medicul Gheorghe Solcan va oferi sfaturi pretioase tuturor fermierilor interesati. Despre lumea fascinanta a fermelor, despre ingrijirea corecta a vacilor, porcilor, cailor etc. doar in direct la BZI LIVE.
In alta ordine de idei, prof. univ. dr. ing. Gheorghe Solcan va detalia cazuri dificile care au ajuns la cabinetul veterinar pe care acesta il detine. Care este primul ajutor pe care il ofera medicul veterinar unui patruped cu spinarea rupta? Raspunsul la aceasta intrebare, si la multe altele, in direct la BZI LIVE.
Toti cei care doresc sa ii adreseze intrebari prof. univ. dr. ing. Gheorghe Solcan, profesor in cadrul Universitatii de Stiinte Agronomice și Medicina Veterinara o pot face la rubrica de comentarii sau in direct, accesand pagina de facebook.
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași
Universities should be punished for giving black students lower grades
The government should judge university teaching on the basis of how it promotes equality and diversity
The government has recently announced that it plans to improve how black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) students perform at university, putting the spotlight back on an issue that has blighted the higher education sector for far too long.
The stark fact is that, according to the latest figures, just 66% of BAME students achieved a first or 2:1 degree in 2016-17, compared to 79.6% of white students. This is an issue affecting all universities, and requires a deep understanding of the factors involved and a genuine commitment to addressing the gap. There is no quick fix.
If we truly want universities to have a meaningful impact on society, a handful doing the heavy lifting around access and attainment is simply not enough. We need universities to make this a strategic commitment. This means ensuring inclusivity is used as a measure of the quality of our courses.
And if we’re really going to close the BAME attainment gap, then we need incentives from the government.
Universities could be recognised and rewarded for their progress through metrics-based exercises such as the Teaching Excellence Framework (Tef), which evaluates universities on the basis of their teaching quality and student outcomes. As it stands, a university could be awarded Tef gold while having no black students attaining a first class degree. That clearly does not reflect teaching excellence for everyone.
While some universities have made good progress in widening access, it is not enough just to get students through the door. We need to get them through their course and enable them to leave with a good degree. By those measures, universities have a lot more work to do.
The Office for Students has vowed to use sticks to drive progress in these areas. In a higher education market driven by academic reputation, the measures by which we assess good performance should also focus on how well we are contributing to a more equal and diverse society.
To achieve this aim, it’s important that universities share best practice. Inspiring examples include Hertfordshire’s inclusive curriculum toolkit, and Birmingham City’s BAME ambassador programme, which is designed to promote a greater sense of belonging among learners and create a dialogue between students and staff.
At Kingston, we have adopted a whole-university drive to address the BAME attainment gap. This starts from the senior leadership team and is a key performance indicator across the institution, including for our development of an inclusive curriculum. If one of our courses doesn’t hit our target for BAME attainment, we immediately step in to rectify it.
Diverse learning communities make for rich environments that help challenge what we know and value – this is the essence of good teaching. The new perspectives that students exposed to diversity bring to a question or task is exactly what employers say they want from graduates. A more diverse workforce is sought after by industry, and universities have a duty to deliver that.
Our campuses should be thriving places where students share their experiences and learn from one another. Universities must truly embrace diversity by changing the way they do things to ensure equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of background. This can only be done by properly holding universities to account, and making diversity and inclusivity measures of a quality education.
Publicație : The Guardian
Are universities hotbeds of left-wing bias?
Claims that academics are indoctrinating their students with liberal propaganda are increasingly common in the right-wing media. John Morgan examines why such a conviction has arisen and whether there is any substance to it
The Twitter account @TEN_GOP became “a heavyweight voice on the American far right”, racking up more than 130,000 followers drawn by its frenzied support for Donald Trump and attacks on liberal targets. The account gained retweets from Donald Trump Jr and Ann Coulter, while media outlets including The Washington Post and Huffington Post embedded its tweets in stories as examples of public opinion.
Output from the account, whose handle referred to the Tennessee Republican party, included tweets about free speech and “liberal bias” controversies at US colleges and universities.
Such messages included: “SPREAD THIS LIKE WILDFIRE: Rollins College suspends student for challenging radical Muslim professor!”; “Professor at Drexel University…‘All I want for Christmas is white genocide’ Where’s liberal outrage over racism here?”; “Free speech is dead in #Berkeley”; “Here’s an idea: let’s take Berkeley’s $350 mil [federal] funding away and use the money to build the border wall (dedicate that part to Berkeley)”; “For investigations on liberal bias at universities, we recommend following [Breitbart reporter] @RealKyleMorris”.
But anyone who thought that @TEN_GOP was writing from Tennessee was miles off – about 5,000 miles off. A list of charges filed by special counsel Robert Mueller last year against 13 named Russian individuals and three Russian companies said that it was actually the handiwork of the St Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, a troll farm that worked to “interfere with US political and electoral processes”.
The agency’s aim was not merely to play its part in Russian efforts to boost Trump’s chances in the 2016 US presidential election, on which Mueller’s FBI investigation is focused. It sought more generally to widen America’s political wounds, through messages from fake, vituperative social media accounts promoting both right- and left-wing perspectives. In keeping with their general approach – tweeting about divisive topics, from abortion to NFL players protesting racism – the Russian troll accounts “use professors as a wedge to drive the left and the right further apart”, says Darren Linvill, associate professor in Clemson University’s department of communication, who created a searchable archive of 3 million tweets linked to the Internet Research Agency’s accounts.
That Russian trolls sought to deploy controversies about “liberal bias” in colleges and universities within their weaponry suggests that they gauged the debate significant and rancorous enough in American life to be exploited.
But claims from right-wing politicians and media figures that universities are guilty of left-wing or liberal “bias” in their teaching or research are not just evident in the US; they are increasingly prominent in the UK, continental Europe and Australia, potentially posing serious risks to the public and political standing of universities.
As Russian trolls and some frenzied media coverage help rocket-propel the debate over university “bias” into lunatic orbit, perhaps it can be brought back to earth by posing two key questions: what does the research evidence tell us about whether the political views of academics influence the political views of their students? And what is fuelling claims of left or liberal “bias” in universities at this particular political moment?
In right-wing attacks on universities across the West, common contentions are spreading.
In the UK, a 2017 report by the right-wing Adam Smith Institute was notable for stepping up the force of the bias claims, suggesting that the “over-representation” of left-liberal views among academics may have had adverse consequences, including “systematic biases in scholarship”. Later that year, the Daily Mail published a now notorious splash under the print headline “Our Remainer Universities”, billing its story as laying bare the “extent of anti-Brexit bias at some of the UK’s best known universities” (the story was an attempt to shift attention away from a pro-Leave Tory MP’s clumsy efforts to press universities into giving him the names of professors who taught on Brexit). Right-wing commentator Toby Young wrote in the Mail in 2018 that universities “have become…Left-wing madrassas”. Sam Gyimah, who served as Tory universities minister between January and December 2018, took an aggressive stance towards universities on their perceived political leanings, repeatedly accusing them of fostering a political “monoculture”.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the right-wing Liberal-led government has ordered an inquiry into “rules and regulations protecting freedom of speech on university campuses”, including standards to protect “freedom of intellectual inquiry in higher education”. In launching it in November, education minister Dan Tehan said free speech must be protected “even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging”, and that “the best university education is one where students are taught to think for themselves”.
Controversies over campus free speech, which are typically focused on the behaviour of students, are close siblings to controversies over academics’ supposed ideological bias. The tenor of the frequent media attacks on so-called “snowflakes”, who rush to shut down debate as soon as they catch a whiff of challenge to their progressive views, imports from the US the “culture wars” approach to universities. That approach has intensified in recent years, fuelled initially by the agitations of conservative activist David Horowitz – who summed up his argument in his 2007 book, Indoctrination U: The Left’s War against Academic Freedom.
Since then, politics and media have only polarised further. “If you watch [right-wing] Fox News when there’s been some incident where a liberal faculty member is behaving inappropriately, it’s wall-to-wall coverage,” says Matthew Woessner, an associate professor of political science and public policy at Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg. “If you turn on [more liberal] MSNBC, it hardly gets a mention…So I think the polarisation of the media contributes to a polarisation in public perceptions of higher education.”
And key new media have emerged. The Professor Watchlist website aims to challenge those who “advance leftist propaganda in the classroom”, while Campus Reform’s teams of student reporters aim to “investigate and report liberal bias on college campuses throughout their state”.
This month, an organisation called Turning Point UK launched as an offshoot of Turning Point USA, the group led by prominent Trump supporter Charlie Kirk, which runs the Professor Watchlist site. Turning Point UK’s chairman, a University of Oxford graduate and former Bullingdon Club member called George Farmer, said the group had established “chapters” at a number of universities, with an aim to “reverse the direction of travel in a lot of these universities, where left-wing academics are broadly filling young minds with cultural Marxism”.
An influential, far more reasoned, academic critique is advanced by scholars involved with the Heterodox Academy project, which campaigns for “viewpoint diversity” among academics.
Across this variety of attacks and critiques, one common point of objection is backed up by research. Faculty “have historically been more liberal, more left-leaning, than the general population”, although this varies “depending on the field of study and on the type of higher education institution”, says Neil Gross, Charles A. Dana professor of sociology at Colby College, Maine, and co-author of the most complete study of the political profile of US faculty.
That study, “The Social And Political Views of American Professors”, co-authored with Solon Simmons in 2007, took a sample of 1,400 individuals across the 20 biggest disciplines in terms of degrees awarded nationally, and asked respondents to categorise their political beliefs. It found that “44.1 percent of respondents can be classified as liberals, 46.6 percent as moderates, and 9.2 percent as conservatives”.
But does this leftward lean of academics translate into bias in university teaching?
According to Woessner, universities have a vital mission to “instil in young people ideas and values which we think are important for civilised society”. So “the fact that academia leans so far to the left raises the obvious question of whether some of the values they are instilling are ideological in nature.”
Woessner and his wife and research partner, April Kelly-Woessner, have co-authored many of the key studies of the political views of academics and their students. The couple’s research programme was partly motivated by a disagreement they had about the extent of left-wing indoctrination on campus. Woessner describes himself as “one of the very few Republicans in higher ed”, but adds that the academics he encountered during his BA at the University of California, Los Angeles in the early 1990s and his PhD at Ohio State University in the second half of that decade were “extremely respectful of my views”. Nevertheless, he “figured that the narrative that conservatives were being indoctrinated was the norm, and that I was an outlier”. However, Kelly-Woessner contended that “students aren’t sponges”.
For their 2010 book The Still Divided Academy: How Competing Visions of Power, Politics, and Diversity Complicate the Mission of Higher Education, the pair, alongside co-author Stanley Rothman, followed a cohort of 1,500 students across the US through higher education, surveying them annually on their party political affiliations and on their views on a range of political issues.
Party affiliation proved to be static. There were some “subtle” movements in other political views, but while those were leftward on social issues, they were rightward on economic issues, Woessner says.
Another Woessner and Kelly-Woessner study, the 2009 paper “I Think My Professor is a Democrat: Considering Whether Students Recognize and React to Faculty Politics”, published in PS: Political Science and Politics, focused on individual students and the professors they were taught by (who disclosed their political views to the researchers). There was “some evidence of students moving left ideologically, but it’s not much”, says Woessner. If academics were influencing students’ politics “we would expect that the most liberal professors would be the ones who would be associated with the movement furthest to the left, but that’s not the case”, he adds.
“The right-wing critique that universities are left-wing seminaries, or that they are indoctrinating students en masse, appears to be overstated…A variety of studies seem to show that students come in with a certain political disposition and they leave with a very similar political disposition.”
Kelly-Woessner, a professor of political science at Elizabethtown College, confirms that “our research repeatedly shows that students do not move dramatically in their political affiliations over the course of their college careers”. Highlighting another of their studies, she says that students “are less likely to pay attention and learn from professors they perceive to be biased against [their own] views”. Students “appear to be more influenced by peers”, she adds.
So the final verdict on the inter-marital debate? Kelly-Woessner was “largely correct”, Woessner concedes. “Students are more resistant to political messages than I thought they were.”
Clemson’s Linvill has not only researched Internet Research Agency tweets. He has also published several studies on students’ perceptions of ideological “bias” in university classrooms. They report that students who are highly committed to their beliefs, and those with a high degree of “academic entitlement or grade orientation”, are more likely to perceive their tutor as showing ideological bias.
Social media has made perceived bias “more of an issue”, Linvill says. Twitter and Facebook make it easier to see, or to infer, the political views of individual academics – and also make supposed bias a “much more difficult issue to contend with” given how easily individual cases can escalate into viral controversies. “There is always some dumb professor somewhere that is going to say something idiotic on social media,” Linvill says, while “many things that are simply bad teaching are easy to construe as political bias”.
A 2018 paper Linvill co-authored with Will Grant and Brandon Boatwright looked at tweets by students in the US, UK and Australia – sent in 2015 and 2016, a period covering the UK’s Brexit vote, the election of Trump and an Australian election – “in an attempt to gain an honest view of how students feel about the role of ideology in the classroom”. In the study, “‘Back-stage’ dissent: student Twitter use addressing instructor ideology”, published in the journal Communication Education, the “majority of tweets were about instructors perceived to be liberal”, Linvill says. But “nearly a third of instructors were perceived by the student to be conservative”, he adds.
Another significant factor was that, actually, students “just weren’t talking much” about bias. The research identified only 1,562 tweets addressing “instructor ideology” over the two years and across the three nations. The paper suggests that, perhaps, “despite the media coverage surrounding classroom ideology, students themselves may not be invested in the topic enough to write about it on Twitter”.
So why is there such frenzy over perceived ideological bias from sections of the Right?
Colby College’s Gross, author of the high-profile 2013 book Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?, suggests that “part of it has to be that education is increasingly a major axis of political polarisation”.
That is as true in the UK as in the US. At the 2017 general election, for instance, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party led the Conservatives by 17 percentage points among those with degree-level qualifications, according to YouGov analysis. And in the 2016 EU referendum, “just 22 per cent of graduates voted to leave the EU, compared with 72 per cent of those without any educational qualifications”, notes a paper on factors behind the Brexit vote by John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde.
Meanwhile, a 2015 paper prepared for the UK government by academics from the Open University and the National Centre for Social Research used data from the British Social Attitudes survey to compare the views of graduates and non-graduates on a range of social issues. The paper, “The Effect of Higher Education on Graduates’ Attitudes”, found that graduates display “the highest levels of political engagement and efficacy”, “the greatest degree of environmental knowledge, concern and willingness to take action for the sake of the environment” and “the most tolerant attitudes towards immigrants and benefit recipients”. The “expanding numbers of graduates, with their distinctive attitudes, may well be driving further changes in society”, the paper said.
It is easy, therefore, to see why some Conservatives – or, in the case of the Brexit vote, the broader cultural right – might regard universities with suspicion, particularly in an age of continuing higher education expansion. In his “leftwing madrassas” column, for instance, Young claims that “one of the reasons Tony Blair was so keen to expand Britain’s universities…was that he hoped to produce a new generation of instinctive Labour voters”.
Less crudely, the right-wing journalist Tim Montgomerie has written that “large percentages of teachers in schools, academics in universities…and other ideas-generators lean towards left, liberal perspectives…The right has lost the battle for control of the ‘upstream’ institutions that form tomorrow’s thinking on multiple fronts.”
Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, who researches the Conservative Party, notes the correlation between graduates and liberal views. However, he says that “whether you’re a sophisticated Gramscian concerned about losing cultural hegemony or simply a right-wing conspiracy theorist, it’s putting two and two together to make five to suggest that the causal link is some kind of brainwashing by lecturers”.
Surveys conducted by the late historian A. H. Halsey found that support for the Tories among non-Oxbridge university academics fell from 38 per cent in 1964 to 19 per cent in 1989. Halsey also observed “a strengthening of anti-Conservative feeling in the British academic professions” over this period. However, Bale notes that “the vast majority of faculty are teaching subjects into which even the most cunning propagandist would find it hard to insert subliminal let alone obvious political messages”.
This is an obvious point, but one usually ignored by proponents of “bias” claims. Gross says that in his research with academics, “as I talked to engineering professors and biologists, geologists, they would always repeat some version of: ‘A rock doesn’t have politics.’ ”
The three most popular degrees in the UK in 2016-17 were business and administrative studies (with 333,425 students), subjects allied to medicine (290,770) and biological sciences (226,395), according to Higher Education Statistics Agency data. Of the sector’s 2.38 million students, 1.07 million (45 per cent) were enrolled on science subjects.
Meanwhile, Strathclyde’s Curtice, a well-known and highly respected pollster in the UK, cautions that “while British Social Attitudes Survey data have long shown a link between social liberalism and university education, there isn’t a link between being left-wing and being a graduate”. He continues: “demonstrating a correlation between university education and social liberalism is easy, proving cause and effect is much more difficult. Do social liberals choose to go to university or do universities make people social liberals?”
Paula Surridge, a senior lecturer in the University of Bristol’s School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, has sought to answer this question. She notes that in continental Europe, most people subscribe to the former theory. But her hunch was that “there was something more to it”.
Surridge notes that longitudinal data, such as the UK 1970 Birth Cohort Study, offer large-scale information on social views that can be measured before and after individuals have been through higher education. Her research with it indicates, for instance, that the gulf between support for and opposition to the death penalty “definitely widens by the time people are 30, according to whether [people] went into higher education or not”.
But regarding claims of ideological bias in university teaching, Surridge makes an obvious but fundamental point: “You would need to know exactly what was going in classrooms” to have evidence on the subject. And that is pretty much impossible in universities. Her 2016 paper, “Education and Liberalism: Pursuing the Link”, based on Birth Cohort Study data, concludes that the “most likely mechanism linking education with [socially] liberal values is socialisation” – individuals spending time as part of a group where those values are common.
“I don’t think it’s something being directly imparted,” she tells THE. “I think it’s something much more complex than that about expectations of social groups and social milieux.”
The paper, published in the Oxford Review of Education, also finds differences across subjects: “Those [graduates] with degrees in social sciences and humanities [are] the most liberal of all the education groups and those with degrees in business studies the least liberal of those with degrees.”
Glyn Davis, former vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne and a vocal critic of the Australian government’s free speech inquiry, says it is important to interrogate the “motive and timing” of claims about political bias on campus. Since “only right-leaning thinktanks…have ever raised the issue, we can say with fairness that the Australian government has responded to these claims from the Right”.
But Australia’s own “culture wars” over universities “seem imported rather than home-grown”, continues Davis, who is now distinguished professor of public policy at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy. “I wonder if there is anything in common about media ownership in America, Britain and Australia that might contribute here?”
Davis seems to be nodding towards Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News TV station in the US and British and Australian newspapers have, indeed, been avid promoters of the narrative of ideological bias in universities. But the intensified polarisation of all media according to their different political audiences has played a key role in advancing that narrative.
Gross argues that while in some ways it makes sense for conservatives to “turn to higher education and see it as the place that all these potential votes are getting lost”, what is actually taking place is “a wholesale transformation of the political sphere, where people who, from an early age, [intend to] go to college…are increasingly turned off by conservative parties, on both sides of the Atlantic”.
Of the UK picture, Curtice says that “the relationship between age and social liberalism is not simply a function of differences of educational background by age: younger people tend to be more liberal irrespective [of education]”.
Perhaps claims of ideological bias in higher education are more about the anxieties of modern conservatism than about universities themselves – about perceived loss of cultural hegemony to the left, about the right’s anxieties over social liberalism. But, regardless of the reliability of their evidence base or the politics of their source, such claims can still damage universities. If conservative suspicion of universities feeds through into a breakdown of consensus over higher education funding – already evident in many US states – then the consequences will be serious. And in an era in which often overtly anti-intellectual right-wing populist parties with non-graduate voter bases are becoming increasingly influential around the world, the culture wars over universities are likely to spread and intensify beyond their traditional front line in the US.
In many nations, the divide between graduates and non-graduates is coming to be seen as the key battleground of modern politics, potentially further isolating universities from sections of right-wing opinion. So it is more important than ever that further research is carried out into how and why the experience of higher education affects graduates’ political and social views. Otherwise, it will not merely be Russian trolls using universities to widen divides and promote their political agenda.
Publicație : The Times
THE Asia-Pacific University Rankings 2019: to the top of the world again
China is reasserting itself at the forefront of intellectual endeavour while its regional neighbours vie to keep the pace. John Ross reports
A couple of centuries ago, China boasted the world’s biggest economy. Literacy was nurtured through a flourishing publishing industry and knowledge dissemination through vast encyclopedias and dictionaries.
As the new millennium gathers steam, the world’s biggest country is reasserting its place at the top of the global pecking order. It will reclaim the mantle of the world’s biggest economy by the end of the next decade, according to some estimates, with others suggesting it has done so already. It has eclipsed Europe in research and development spending and is on track to surpass the US. Its share of global scientific publications exceeds its share of global gross domestic product, leading the world in raw volume and close to overtaking the US in terms of impact.
With such momentum, it was only a matter of time before China started topping university league tables. Few will be surprised to find Tsinghua University occupying first place in this year’s Times Higher Education Asia-Pacific University Rankings, after the Beijing institution edged past the National University of Singapore to become Asian front-runner in the 2019 World University Rankings.
Tsinghua – ironically located on the site of the gardens of the Qing Dynasty, China’s last imperial leaders, who constructed the fifth biggest empire in history – stormed up the World University Rankings ladder from 71st in 2012 to 22nd this year.
Since the APAC rankings debuted in 2017, Tsinghua has maintained or improved its score each year in all five pillars underpinning the tables: teaching, research, citations, international outlook and industry income. It is the star performer in a nation that is rapidly improving its ranking performance, both in quantity and quality.
While the number of ranked institutions in the region has grown by almost a third in two years, from 243 in 2017 to 320 this year, China has nevertheless managed to increase its share of entries from 21 per cent to 23 per cent during the same period. And of the 60 Chinese universities that were also ranked last year, 40 per cent have improved their standing.
This compares with 30 per cent in South Korea, 17 per cent in Taiwan, 10 per cent in Japan and none in Thailand.
More than a competitor, China is the comparator by which neighbours evaluate their own performance. “Even staying still in the rankings is not unreasonable these days” given China’s strength, says Nicholas Fisk, deputy vice-chancellor at the University of New South Wales.
Hamish Coates, a professor at Tsinghua’s Institute of Education, says that China owes its rankings success to more than the much-vaunted government investment in universities. “Pretty much since the massification of Chinese higher education in 1998, there’s been an emphasis on science and technology,” he says.
“About half of the faculty and students are studying in those kinds of fields. And those kinds of fields tend to get reflected very well in the current international rankings. The rankings measure what they measure, and they happen to be in the space in which China has always been very much focused.”
But the rankings do not necessarily reflect the full reach or complexity of the Chinese diaspora. Coates says that researchers within the country, combined with Chinese students and academics located abroad, are responsible for about 50 per cent of global science.
“That’s our best guess,” he says. “Over the past 20 years in which China has sent tens of thousands of students around the world to study PhDs, the world has not sent tens of thousands of students to study in China. The international literacy of Chinese PhDs far exceeds the international literacy of almost any other country.
“That has led to a situation where Chinese students can read English, often fluently, but not many other students can read Chinese research. There are narratives built [by Westerners] around Chinese research that bear little resemblance to the research [Chinese academics are] talking about. Higher education is replete with that kind of practice.”
The rankings also underestimate China’s linguistic reach, Coates says. “Most people here publish as much in Chinese as they do in English. They’re not the same publications – they’re different pieces of work, often reflecting different projects and done for completely different reasons. None of that Chinese publication by and large gets picked up in the Western metrics.”
He says that the metrics also struggle to reflect the contributions universities are making to distinct fields and regions through China’s Double World-Class initiative, the planet’s biggest university investment programme, whose goal is to catapult 42 institutions into the global front rank by 2050.
Zhejiang University, another Chinese success story, credits the scheme for the country’s rankings progress. “Based on the Double World-Class initiative, many Chinese universities have taken measures to encourage innovation and improve quality and reputation,” says He Lianzhen, Zhejiang’s vice-president of international affairs.
“With China’s economic growth and favourable policies for the development of higher education…I look forward to continuous improvement in the performance of Chinese universities.”
Zhejiang is knocking on the door of the world top 100, having soared from the 301-350 bracket in the 2012 World University Rankings to 101st this year. In the APAC rankings, the university has risen from 29th in 2017 to joint 19th this year, leapfrogging two Chinese counterparts in the past year to become the country’s fourth-best performer.
The APAC rankings methodology differs slightly from that of the World University Rankings, with less emphasis on teaching and research reputation and more on industry income, research income and research productivity – another factor that could favour institutions in China, where many major enterprises are state-owned. But He says that collaborations with government-owned enterprises contribute to only a “portion” of Zhejiang’s industrial revenue.
She says that R&D collaborations with private sector companies also attract considerable earnings, given the university’s “advantageous location” in Hangzhou (pictured below) – the “hub of the new economy” in China.
As well as industry income, Zhejiang has registered marked improvements in its teaching and internationalisation. Zhejiang’s He says that the two are linked, with internationalisation considered a “driver” of student experience.
“The university has witnessed a substantial increase in the numbers of foreign students and faculty over the past year,” she says. “Chinese students benefit from engaging with them.”
Australia’s Fisk says that China’s approach to university funding is the scientific equivalent of its One Belt, One Road initiative.
“They’re really on a roll,” he says. “Their unmoderated GDP is still rising significantly. You’ve got reverse brain drain. You’ve got high investment. And you’ve got some really good elite institutions.”
China’s metrics are also boosted by a burgeoning penchant for self-reference, he says. A recent Nature analysis found that 47 per cent of citations in papers authored by academics in China referred to other Chinese papers, putting the East Asian giant 10 percentage points ahead of a traditionally inward-looking US in terms of “country self-citations”.
“Chinese colleagues who used to come abroad didn’t want to go home. Now they can’t wait to get back to all their sophisticated electronics,” Fisk says, adding that China boasts great airlines, slick hotels and the most extensive bullet train network in the world.
Despite all this, China remains hampered by an emphasis on quantity over quality – it still trails the US and Europe in highly cited papers – and by the “skeleton in the closet of bureaucracy and government intervention”, Fisk says. “When we [in Australia] recruit people, academic freedom is one of the competitive advantages.”
The rankings decline of long-time Chinese front-runner Peking University has coincided with political meddling in its leadership. In October, former president Lin Jianhua was suddenly replaced by Hao Ping, a one-time Chinese vice-minister of education who had also served as Communist Party secretary of the institution.
Peking ranks sixth in this year’s APAC rankings – down from third last year and second in 2017 – although its descent largely reflects a fall in its industry income.
But to appreciate the contribution of academic autonomy to university rankings, China’s leaders need only look at its special administrative region of Hong Kong. Of six ranked institutions in the territory, two have moved upwards and two are stable in this year’s table.
The climbers include Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, which leapfrogged Peking and cross-town rival the University of Hong Kong to claim fourth place behind Tsinghua, the NUS and the University of Melbourne.
While commentators worry that Beijing’s increasingly assertive stance could reach across the border, HKUST president Wei Shyy says that Hong Kong’s government and University Grants Committee are “very mindful” of the importance of maintaining academic autonomy.
“I don’t see that changing,” he says. “Hong Kong is trying to figure out its way forward in many aspects – socially, economically, politically – but within our campus, we don’t have any interference. I can say that categorically. Nobody ever calls me to tell me what we can and cannot do in terms of academic conduct.”
HKUST’s programmes are taught almost entirely in English, Shyy points out. “Many students don’t have a Chinese background,” he says. “Fundamentally, we want to make sure that all students feel this is a place for them to learn.”
But he says that as a predominantly Chinese society, Hong Kong does not lack opportunities for immersion in Chinese culture, knowledge and insight. “It’s just that we would like to use English on campus for professional activities, and this also will help our local students advance their communication skills in English. That’s quite important.”
While the University of Hong Kong trumped HKUST in this year’s World University Rankings, HKUST prevailed in the APAC rankings on the strength of superior industry income. But Shyy says that as a much younger institution – HKUST was established in 1991, 80 years after the University of Hong Kong – it also benefits from being “a little more agile”.
He adds that HKUST has not modulated its activities to maximise rankings performance. “The ranking frameworks match quite well in terms of where we have been going anyway,” he insists.
Nevertheless, HKU’s vice-president for teaching and learning, Ian Holliday, says that the league tables drive plenty of “friendly competition” between the territory’s universities.
“All of us have been chasing rankings, frankly,” Holliday says. “We’re all conscious of the rise of the university sector in the mainland and other parts of the region. All of us feel that unless we’ve got a respectable ranking – and respectable means different things, depending on who you are – then we’re not going to thrive in attracting international talent – both colleagues and students.”
While China’s rise is largely at the expense of neighbouring university systems, plenty of individual institutions have nevertheless found ways to get ahead. The pacemaking institutions in almost all the region’s countries have moved up this year’s APAC rankings.
Melbourne, HKUST, Japan’s Tokyo and Kyoto universities, South Korea’s Seoul National and Sungkyunkwan universities, the National Taiwan University, Malaysia’s University of Malaya, the University of Macau, the University of the Philippines and the University of Indonesia all notched up improvements.
How have these national stars resisted the Chinese tide? In Japan’s case, Double World-Class-style flagship programmes – most recently, the Designated National University initiative – have helped to buoy the leading institutions.
The University of Indonesia, which aspires to be among the world’s best institutions, has set its sights on being an Asian front-runner as an intermediate goal. “It’s there in one of the world’s biggest countries, funnelling money and energy into its pre-eminent higher education institution,” Coates says. “How that will play out, we don’t know.”
South Korea’s top players are reaping the benefits of high R&D spending from both government and industry in areas such as biotechnology, and a global fascination with Korean youth culture that has helped to attract foreign students.
Of the nine Malaysian institutions ranked in both 2018 and 2019, five – including the top two – have moved up the APAC ladder. Zaharom Nain, a communication studies professor at the University of Nottingham’s Malaysia campus, says that the improvement of the country’s institutions largely reflects progress in the sciences and engineering, which are areas of national strength.
While Malaysian academics breathlessly anticipate reform in the wake of the ousting of the repressive government of Najib Raza, Zaharom says that enhanced autonomy might not translate to enhanced rankings performance. He notes that there has never been much state meddling in engineering or the sciences, outside a few flashpoint issues such as climate change and palm oil.
“Freedom of speech or expression – these ideas are very much related to the social sciences and humanities,” he says.
Australia, like China, has seen 40 per cent of its institutions improve their standing in this year’s APAC rankings. Fisk says that the two countries perform very similarly in the major global league tables, with roughly the same number of top 200 institutions and almost identical average placings.
In the World University Rankings, for example, China’s top institutions rank 96th on average, compared with Australia’s 95th. But Fisk says that China’s leading lights averaged outside the top 200 a mere seven years ago, while Australia was just outside the top 100.
“The Chinese universities were pretty flat until 2015 and then took off; whereas the Australian universities have pretty well flatlined since then. Australia started off in a much better position, but the Chinese universities have double the velocity,” he says.
Fisk adds that Australia’s performance is being hampered by the government’s capping of key teaching and research funding streams in its last two mini-budgets. Five of Australia’s elite Group of Eight universities, including UNSW, lost ground in this year’s APAC rankings.
Although the pacesetting University of Melbourne escaped that fate, rising from fourth to third, vice-chancellor Duncan Maskell says that no Australian institution can rest on its laurels.
“We need to ensure that our research and teaching excellence is better known among our colleagues and peers internationally,” he says, adding that he wants Melbourne to build more “mutually beneficial” partnerships with industry.
Many of Australia’s APAC rankings success stories this year were mid-tier institutions, with Canberra, Griffith and Flinders universities among the 14 logging improvements. “The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we’re about to hit some sort of plateau,” says Tony Sheil, the Griffith vice-chancellor’s chief of staff.
“Investment is the key. Universities that focus the investment tend to perform better than ones that just wait for improvement to happen organically.”
Flinders vice-chancellor Colin Stirling credits the university’s strategic plan – with its characteristic focus on elements such as university culture, teaching, research and community engagement – for elevating its APAC standing from 64th to 43rd in two years.
“Strategy’s one thing; implementation’s another,” Stirling says. “We’ve had a real focus on implementation and making sure that our strategic plan is not just words.”
In nearby New Zealand, while all eight universities remained in the ranking, only two moved up rather than down: Auckland University of Technology, with its focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the University of Canterbury, both of which now tie in 51st place.
Dave Guerin, editor of the Tertiary Insight industry newsletter, says that Canterbury is recovering from the earthquakes that shattered Christchurch in 2010 and 2011. “It’s had considerable investment,” he says. “It’s on a good path.”
But by and large, the New Zealand sector’s performance reflects the stronger economies of its regional neighbours. “Their education systems are getting bigger, faster,” he says. “It’s a long-term trend. New Zealand’s relative economic position in the world is changing and has been for decades.
“Anyone in the university sector will say that this is a critical time to put more money in. Universities always say now is a crisis, and we need more money. At some point they’ll be right.”
Publicație : The Times
Research intelligence: communicating your research to those in power
Diana Mitlin, professor of global urbanism at the University of Manchester, shares her tips on working with politicians and government officials
As academics, how much should we care about ensuring that our research gets into the hands of those who can deliver change? Is it even our role to do so?
My experience researching global urbanism at the University of Manchester’s Global Development Institute involves working with civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, social movements, funders and policymakers particularly in the global South, who are using, or could use, my research.
The ethical dilemma of whether a researcher should be taking a position on their research is getting more discussion now because achieving impact is increasingly a requirement from funders. This means that someone has to read or hear about your findings. But how do you know who to work with, how to best work with them, and who to trust?
For me, the key is to work with people actively seeking solutions and to stand firm in your position. When you’re working with government officials, look for someone who shares your values: in my case, someone who is concerned with issues of poverty and exclusion. The point of your work is not to try to challenge an official’s core values – that’s the job of NGOs. In my area of research, academics who try to persuade people to change their values will not succeed.
Our role is to use our research to help officials understand how to best achieve their aims. With politicians, you can talk them through different scenarios and show them evidence that, say, implementing their original plans would be more complicated than they might have thought.
While politicians will be concerned with votes, officials and civil servants care about more complex issues such as reducing risk. Because of this, they are often reluctant to try anything novel or something that hasn’t worked well in the past. Know who you’re talking to and present to them in a reasoned way, adjusting your approach as needed to suit the audience. Never go into those meetings cold, and never go in on your own, if you don’t know the full context.
If you’re asked by an NGO to go into a meeting with a politician or an official, ask what role you as an academic will play and how you can add value. From the looks on people’s faces when I ask this of NGO professionals, academics rarely raise such questions. Once you get experience working with your NGO partners, they can even cue you into the right part of the meeting so you can present “the evidence” at the right time.
Take the example of an official who may be looking to evict (and possibly relocate) an informal settlement because a politician wants to “clean up” the city. In this context, my role is to explain how this may cause problems for the existing residents – most of whom will be working in the city in either formal or informal work.
I might give the example of a city that tried to do this and the kinds of problems that resulted. These problems might include protest demonstrations (and the subsequent political challenges those pose for local authorities) and people facing difficulties getting to work. I might also discuss the evidence we have that this approach does not work and talk about the ways that populations find to return to the city. Then I would share positive examples of upgrading informal settlements from elsewhere, drawing on experiences from cities that are similar or that the city authorities aspire to emulate.
Finally, you should avoid spending too much time attracting the attention of politicians who want to want to be associated with your research but aren’t in a position to really help. For example, an internationally funded research consortium might get the attention of a minister or a high-ranking official who will attend a research meeting for the PR photo but won’t actually make a contribution to the work you’re doing.
We don’t have to do this all alone. We should look to leverage support from our universities, which have communications teams that can advise on media, impact, public engagement and reaching policymakers. I’ve found that working with communications colleagues over a period of time ensures that they build a greater understanding of my research topics as well as the advocacy opportunities within my research.
Publicație : The Times
Western universities feel the strain of China talent tussle
Foreign faculty’s dissatisfaction adds to the lure of Chinese recruitment push
Western university sectors could regret employment practices that handicap academics from Asian backgrounds, as China ramps up its efforts to lure expatriates and foreigners to feed its burgeoning need for faculty.
Push factors, such as seemingly discriminatory employment arrangements that trap Asians in junior academic positions, could add to the pull factors of a Chinese recruitment onslaught that has increased its aspirations by an order of magnitude.
China’s Ten Thousand Talents Programme – an update on the better-known Thousand Talents Plan – aims to enlist 100 potential Nobel prizewinners among a field of 8,000 “leading talents” and 2,000 “young talents” aged under 35.
Its success so far is difficult to judge, with information on Chinese recruitment initiatives increasingly difficult to find after the US claimed that the Thousand Talents Plan was being harnessed for technology theft. Reports suggest that the latter scheme had attracted 4,180 overseas experts by May 2014 and that this had risen to about 8,000 by late last year.
Recruits can attract personal payments of 500,000 yuan (£57,000) and research subsidies worth up to 10 times that amount.
Other benefits include prestigious job titles, permanent residency, start-up packages worth 1 million yuan, apartments, schooling, medical care, insurance, work rights for spouses and tax-free housing and food allowances.
The two schemes are among a plethora of national, state and institution-sponsored initiatives to secure the best and brightest experts. Others include the two-decades-old Changjiang Scholars Programme, the International Talents scheme of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the National High-level Talents Special Support Program – also known as the “Million Plan”.
Laurie Pearcey, pro vice-chancellor (international) at the University of New South Wales, said that a quasi-government recruitment agency had set up an Australian bureau to enlist both Chinese graduates of Australian university courses and seasoned academics from all backgrounds. “It tells you how seriously China is taking the talent drive,” he said.
“As the rise of not just China’s but Asia’s research system comes to bear, Western institutions are competing with a vastly different field of universities and research systems. We’re going to have to think carefully about how we nurture our own talent, and recruit new talent from around the world.”
Eugene Clark, a former pro vice-chancellor at the University of Canberra, said that he had been on the verge of retirement when he was recruited to Beijing’s China University of Political Science and Law under the Thousand Talents Plan. He said that China had “strategically and deliberately” cultivated faculty who had trained all over the world and spoke many languages.
“To the extent that if we don’t keep up, it could make it harder to attract and keep talent,” he said.
Australian-born theoretical physicist Tim Byrnes secured Thousand Talents Plan sponsorship a year after moving from Japan to the Shanghai campus of New York University. The research subsidy funded a lab and allowed him to make the jump to applied physicist. “I probably couldn’t have done that anywhere else,” he said.
“When I took this position four years ago there was just a handful of foreigners doing quantum information in China. Now I hear about people coming here all the time.”
A Chinese-born biomedical professor in an Australian university, who asked not to be named, said that he had recently helped recruit for a senior research fellowship. Advertisements attracted three US-based Chinese specialists, all of whom arrived for interviews and then “turned us down”.
“They said the offer was not attractive. One of them stayed in the US. Two went back to China,” he said.
University of Western Australia political scientist Greg McCarthy, who recently completed a stint as chair of Australian studies at Peking University, said that Australian universities employed as many academics from China as from the UK. But studies had shown that Chinese-born academics struggled to climb above tutor or associate lecturer status, with many blaming racial discrimination.
“Those are the things that will drive people away – the lack of opportunities here will be as strong as the lure to go back,” he said.
Publicație : The Times
IUT: création de 950 places supplémentaires en Ile-de-France
Les places en Institut universitaire de technologie manquent en Ile-de-France, surtout dans les domaines tertiaires (commerce, gestion, informatique..). Près de 1000 places seront créées à la rentrée.
Le gouvernement a annoncé mercredi la création de 950 places supplémentaires dans les universités pour les IUT à la rentrée 2019 en Ile-de-France, des places créées notamment dans les cursus du tertiaire et bientôt proposées sur Parcoursup.
«Plus de 121.000 étudiants ont été inscrits en IUT à la rentrée 2018, soit une augmentation de 3,2% par rapport à la rentrée 2017», a rappelé la ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur Frédérique Vidal, lors d’un déplacement à l’Université Paris-Est Créteil.
«Si l’on ajoute à cela qu’un tiers des étudiants d’IUT sont issus des classes sociales les moins favorisées, il ne fait aucun doute qu’il s’agit là d’une voie de promotion sociale qui doit être soutenue», a-t-elle souligné.
Elle a annoncé la création, pour la rentrée 2019, de près de 950 places en IUT (Instituts universitaires de technologie), en Ile-de-France, principalement dans le secteur tertiaire, très demandé, pour un financement de près de 6 millions d’euros.
Ces places supplémentaires seront intégrées sous peu sur la plateforme Parcoursup, où les futurs bacheliers et étudiants en réorientation ont jusqu’au 14 mars pour inscrire leurs vœux d’études supérieures pour l’année prochaine.
Les IUT, comme les BTS et les classes prépa, font partie des filières sélectives de l’enseignement supérieur. Les IUT s’adressent plus particulièrement, mais pas seulement, aux jeunes issus des bacs technologiques. Les BTS sont surtout destinés aux bacheliers issus de la voie professionnelle (les bacs pro).
Avec la loi sur les nouvelles modalités d’accès à l’université (la loi ORE), entrée en vigueur il y a un an, le nombre de bacheliers technologiques acceptés en IUT a progressé de 19% à la rentrée 2018, s’est félicitée la ministre.
L’an dernier, la ministre avait déjà fait état d’une «forte demande en direction des IUT», coïncidant selon elle avec une «demande de plus en plus forte en direction des formations courtes professionnalisantes», à savoir BTS, IUT et licences pro.
Publicație : Le Figaro
Les « bachelors » des écoles d’ingénieurs cherchent leur place
Les Arts et métiers ont lancé en 2014 une formation bac+3 pour répondre à la demande des grandes industries. D’autres écoles ont suivi. Mais à la sortie, la plupart des étudiants décident de poursuivre jusqu’à bac+5.
L’Ecole nationale supérieure d’arts et métiers de Bordeaux-Talence.
En 2014, 48 titulaires d’un bac sciences et technologies de l’industrie et du développement durable (STI2D) intégraient ce qui était alors un ovni de l’enseignement supérieur : un bachelor (bac + 3) proposé par l’Ecole nationale supérieure d’arts et métiers (Ensam) sur les campus de Bordeaux-Talence et de Châlons-en-Champagne. Quatre ans plus tard, les pionniers, aujourd’hui diplômés, mesurent le chemin parcouru.
Tom Lopez, 23 ans, fait partie des 24 premiers étudiants du campus bordelais. Pourquoi avoir opté pour un bachelor ? Cette formation technologique répond à un besoin d’entreprises industrielles comme Airbus, Dassault ou EDF, qui ont fait savoir qu’elles recherchaient des techniciens aptes à encadrer de petites équipes et des assistants ingénieurs formés dans le moule de l’Ensam.
Energie et encouragements
« Nous sommes une école qui forme des ingénieurs généralistes. Nous avons réalisé qu’il manquait un maillon dans la chaîne de production. Nous avons mis en place cette formation pour mettre sur le marché les cadres intermédiaires dont ont besoin les entreprises », explique Xavier Kestelyn, directeur général adjoint chargé des formations. Tom correspond au profil : « Je ne me voyais pas faire une classe prépa. Je voulais juste poursuivre mes études pour parvenir au niveau technicien. »
Ce cursus postbac est d’abord une alternative de formation professionnalisante courte, à destination de bacheliers qui ne souhaitent – ou ne peuvent – pas poursuivre un parcours bac + 5, et qui veulent s’insérer au plus vite sur le marché du travail. Bref, une passerelle vers une embauche. Mais l’ambition vient en étudiant, et l’objectif de former des « super-techniciens » est manqué… car dépassé. Au sein des sociétés qu’ils intègrent, les étudiants en bachelor trouvent l’énergie et les encouragements pour poursuivre.
Les diplômés des premières promotions ont ainsi majoritairement choisi de continuer leurs études. « Ceci est un succès, même si l’objectif premier était bien une insertion professionnelle directe », rappelle M. Kestelyn.
Sélection
Tom, par exemple, s’est spécialisé en mécanique option production maintenance et poursuit sa formation en alternance, salarié par Airbus. Julie Delcan, sa camarade de la première heure, a intégré un cycle d’ingénieurs en génie industriel, en apprentissage chez le joaillier Cartier. Ils ne sont pas des exceptions. En effet, sur les 48 pionniers de ce bachelor (39 diplômés, 3 réorientés en BTS), 30 ont poussé la porte d’une école d’ingénieurs spécialisée. Auxquels s’ajoutent 7 autres qui, comme Arthur Langlois, 23 ans, en alternance au Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES), ont intégré un cursus d’ingénieur généraliste et sont devenus « gadzarts ». « Force est de constater que les élèves ont pris goût à l’apprentissage et aux études », remarque M. Kestelyn.
Pour ne pas manquer le lancement de ses bachelors, l’Ensam s’est donné les moyens. Par la sélection, d’abord : en 2014, l’établissement a reçu quelque 220 candidatures pour 28 places, alors que les débouchés n’étaient pas encore connus. Les effectifs furent réduits afin d’offrir des conditions de travail optimales : « 24 par classe », rappelle Tom. Et « des profs qui vous suivent de près, vous motivent et vous boostent dans le cadre d’une pédagogie par projet », abonde Arthur. Une pédagogie éloignée de celle des classes prépa, où on « pratique un formatage des étudiants », estime Julie.
Le coup d’essai semble transformé et l’appétence pour le bachelor de la part des bacheliers STI2D, premiers concernés par ce circuit court, s’accroît. A 170 euros par an, soit le coût d’une inscription en licence, ils sont déjà 450 à avoir fait la demande sur Parcoursup en 2019. Pour 76 places à pourvoir.
Cursus très rentables
Depuis ce premier lancement en 2014, les Arts et métiers ont fait des émules dans les autres écoles d’ingénieurs, en particulier les établissements privés. Pas question de laisser aux écoles de commerce le monopole de ces cursus très rentables et qui séduisent de nombreuses familles, se sont sans doute dit les directions de ces établissements.
Depuis trois ans, plusieurs écoles d’ingénieurs ont lancé cette nouvelle offre, à destination des bacheliers technologiques ou généraux. Avec, à chaque fois, la possibilité de s’arrêter à bac + 3 ou de poursuivre jusqu’à bac + 5, dans le même établissement ou ailleurs. Certains se sont placés à mi-chemin entre l’ingénierie et le business. L’ESEO, à Angers et Paris, par exemple, a créé le sien, spécialisé dans les « solutions numériques connectées ». A La Rochelle, l’Eigsi a ouvert un bachelor en « transformation numérique des entreprises ». A Sceaux, l’EPF a initié, en partenariat avec une école de commerce, un cursus postbac de trois ans pour former des « innovateurs », avec un semestre obligatoire dans une université étrangère. L’Esilv, à la Défense, s’est aussi positionnée sur ce créneau.
Diversifier les profils
Très encadrés, ces cursus peuvent « rassurer » des parents, alors prêts à payer le prix : entre 6 000 euros et 8 000 euros par an pour la plupart des bachelors des écoles privées (hors Arts et métiers, une école publique). L’objectif de ces établissements est surtout de coller aux attentes de la nouvelle génération : ne pas s’engager pour trop longtemps. Trois ans, et on voit ensuite.
Le bachelor constitue donc une nouvelle offre dans le paysage des écoles d’ingénieurs, qui était déjà fragmenté en deux clans : les cursus postbac en cinq ans (comme les écoles INSA, dont la plus prisée est celle de Lyon), et ceux accessibles à partir de bac + 2, après une prépa ou par le biais d’admissions parallèles.
De la même manière que les écoles postbac ont diversifié le profil des étudiants ingénieurs, on peut parier que les bachelors joueront également ce rôle, emmenant vers des études longues des jeunes pas forcément issus de la filière S et qui, au départ, n’étaient pas sûrs de vouloir s’engager pour aussi longtemps dans une même voie. Cette évolution devrait se poursuivre avec la future réforme du bac, qui diversifiera encore plus les profils des élèves.
Aujourd’hui, selon la Conférence des directeurs des écoles françaises d’ingénieurs, dans les plus de 200 établissements habilités à délivrer un diplôme reconnu par la commission des titres d’ingénieur, les diplômés ne sont que 40 % à être passés par une classe prépa. Ils sont autant à y avoir été admis directement après le bac, tandis que 20 % les ont intégrés après un premier diplôme.
Publicație : Le Monde
|
