Assessment HEI 2006

Report 2006

Assessment of public universities and their faculties

© ARRA, Bratislava 2006

2

The report includes results of the project “Quality assessment of research and development at the universities and institutes of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava Region”, financed by European Social Fund.

This report originated also with financial aid of the following organisations:

www.pss.sk

www.luba.sk

www.orange.sk

www.worldbank.sk

www.yhman.sk

Media partner of ARRA is:

www.trend.sk

3

The authors of this report would like to thank the members of

the Board of Advisors of ARRA, in particular prof. Stich, prof. Brunovsky, doc. Ferak, prof. Kusa, A. Salner and others, and also the members of the Board of Trustees (in particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollar) for their critical but always relevant and constructive comments, and also for discussions, analyses and reviews of draft material in the production of the report. One of the factors that enabled ARRA to produce the following analysis was the fact that the SR Ministry of Education publishes a great deal of material and information about higher education. We would like to thank doc. RNDr. Peter Mederly, CSc. for his valuable discussion of this material. The selection of criteria and the set up of the methodology used have been taken, with minor modifications, from the last year’s ARRA Report1. As mentioned in the cited report, conversations with Don Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the World Bank arranged for ARRA, made a significant contribution to the relevant part, and they also deserve our thanks. We would like to point out, however, that the opinions presented in the following report are not necessarily identical with those of the persons named here.

The ARRA Agency was able to carry out its activities thanks to contributions from its sponsors, whether financial, in kind, or in the form of know how, in particular Prvá stavebná sporiteľňa, Orange Slovensko, Ľudová banka, the World Bank, GfK – Market Research Institute, Yhman, Trend weekly, and others. The assessment of the work of the Bratislava faculties of universities in the field of research and development and their comparison with SAV institutes was supported by a grant from the European Social Fund.

1 Report “Assessment of public universities and their faculties (2005)”, ARRA, December 2005 (www.arra.sk)

4

Table of contents

Summary..................................................................................................................................5 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................7 2 The role of rankings............................................................................................................9 3 On assessment methodology ............................................................................................. 10

3.1 Basic principles for assessment of higher education institutions ...................................... 10 3.2 Classification of faculties ............................................................................................. 10 3.3 Criteria .................................................................................................................... 166

4 Basic characteristics of the indicators and their classification into groups ............................... 18 4.1 “Science and Research” Category ................................................................................ 18

4.1.1 “Publications and Citations” Group ........................................................................ 18 4.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group ............................................................................................ 18 4.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ......................................................................................... 18

4.2 “Study and Education” Category .................................................................................. 18 4.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group ............................................................................ 18 4.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group.............................................................................. 19 4.2.3 “University Level Criteria” Group ........................................................................... 19

4.3 “Financing” Category .................................................................................................. 19 5 Method for the assessment of faculties and universities ....................................................... 20

5.1 Illustration of the method for the assessment of faculties and universities....................... 20 6 Commentary on individual indicators .................................................................................. 21

6.1 Science and research.................................................................................................. 21 6.1.1 “Publications and citations” Group ......................................................................... 21 6.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group .......................................................................................... 499 6.1.3 “Grant Success” Group ....................................................................................... 688

6.2 Study and education................................................................................................. 911 6.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group .......................................................................... 911 6.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group.........................................................................12222 6.2.3 University-Level Criteria group .........................................................................14141

6.3 Financing..............................................................................................................14444 7 Comparison of university teachers’ salaries ..................................................................... 1455 8 Aggregate assessment of faculties within groups ............................................................. 1466 9 Aggregate assessment of universities ............................................................................15151 10 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................15252 11 About the authors and the report...............................................................................15353

11.1 People at ARRA.....................................................................................................15353 11.1.1 Board of Advisors ...........................................................................................15353 11.1.2 Board of Trustees ...........................................................................................15353 11.1.3 ARRA members ..............................................................................................15353 11.1.4 ARRA Secretariat ............................................................................................15353

5

Summary ARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing public higher education institutions and faculties for 2005.

The present report follows up the last year’s assessment of faculties and higher education institutions. The report uses the methodology developed last year. Ninety-eight faculties and two higher education institutions not structured into faculties were divided into six groups based on the Frascati Manual: natural sciences (NAT, 10 faculties), engineering and technology (TECH, 23 faculties), medical sciences (MED, 4 faculties), agricultural sciences (AGRO, 6 faculties), social sciences (SOC, 34 faculties), and humanities (HUM, 23 faculties). Of the total number, seven faculties (four social science faculties, one faculty of engineering and technology, humanity and natural sciences) were not included in the assessment and additional 12 were compensated in certain criteria with respect to their short existence.

Faculties and higher education institutions were assessed using 25 indicators grouped into 3 substantively compatible groups, namely science and research, study and education, and financing. Two indicators from the Study and Education group and all indicators from the Financing group are, with respect to data available, used only on the university level and therefore they are not included in the resulting assessment of faculties. Compared to the last year, three new criteria have been added (VV2a – Number of citations per publication, VV3a – Number of papers with more than 25 citations, and VV9 - Funding from state programmes and foreign grants).

Indicators in all cases measured performance intensity rather than total performance. This eliminated the impact of the faculty size and the attention was focused on its quality. On the basis of performance in each of the criteria, the faculty was assigned a certain number of points. Their average per indicator groups determined the ranking of the given institution within its Frascati group.

What is positive is that in comparison with the last year, a moderate improvement occurred in all parameters under assessment and in nearly all institutions under assessment.

An improvement occurred also in the Science and Research category of indicators. The number of papers published by Slovak scientists assessed using the first criterion (VV1) has a moderately rising trend. However, this trend should not be seen necessarily positively. Employees of Slovak universities published a total of 12,172 papers that are recorded in WoK in the period 1996 – 2005. 7,326 citations of these papers were recorded. Of these 12,172 papers, however, 4,846 papers, i.e., 40%, did not receive a single citation. This fact shows that even the papers’ own author did not cite it during the monitored period. Compared to the period of 1995 – 2004, when there were 3,823 such papers (30%, the total being 11,163), this is an increase by more than 1,000 papers (or ten percentage points) that no one noticed. Thus, although the quantitative indicator of the number of publications increased, their attractiveness for the world’s scientific community decreased. It is not without interest that the increase in the number of publications nearly coincides with the increase in the number of papers that no one noticed.

In the second group, in the “Science and Research” indicator category, attention was concentrated

on the “PhD Studies” indicator, which focuses on the education of new scientists. It turned out that there was a lack of correlation between scientific performance (publications and citations VV1 – VV3a) and the number of PhD students (VV4), thus high numbers of PhD students are being trained at institutions with relatively low scientific performance. It was also found that the success rate in PhD studies (indicator VV5) was only 30%. Education institutions with the greatest number of PhD study graduates are not – with an exception for the winner in the SOC group (the TVU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work) – the most successful ones in scientific production (publications and citations).

The third group among the science and research evaluation criteria dealt with the “Grant Success” of the faculties (VV7 – VV10). In this group, there was greater diversity among the winners in individual Frascati groups than in publications or PhD students. Surprisingly, in the SOC group, a different faculty succeed in each of the indicators. Particularly in indicator VV9 (funding from state programmes and foreign grants), faculties in the HUM and SOC group were generally considerably more successful than in other indicators in the field of science and research. TU Košice Faculty of Arts was not only the most successful one in VV9 within the HUM group but also among all Slovakia’s faculties under assessment.

Another large group of criteria is focused on “Study and Education”. This group is subdivided into the “Students and Teachers” and “Applications for Study” groups. In the part “Students and Teachers”, an interesting finding for the SV1 criterion (ratio of the number of students to the number of teachers) was made, namely that there are relatively large differences among faculties in one group and even among faculties with very similar orientation (for example, the VŠMU Theatre Faculty 8 versus AU Faculty of Music 4 students per teacher, or KU Faculty of Philosophy 30 and UK Faculty of Philosophy 11 students per teacher). At the same time, it turns out that the ratio of part-time students to full-time students continues to rise in Slovakia. In 2005, part-time students comprised 32% of all students; at 16 of 100 faculties, part-time students were even in the majority. In ARRA’s view, this increase may threaten the quality of higher education, as there is presently no sufficient mechanism to control the basic standards of part-time study.

Like with SV1, it is better in ARRA’s opinion if the value of the ratio of the number of students to the number of professors and associate professors (SV2) is lower. It can be concluded that as expected, this ratio is the lowest at faculties of arts. Similarly as with SV1, there are large differences as well in the values, including at very similar faculties. An extreme example is, in the SOC group, the KU Faculty of Healthcare with the largest number of students per professor and associate professor among all faculties in Slovakia (503.5) while at a similarly oriented TvU Faulty of Healthcare and Social Work, there are twelve times fewer students per professor and associate professor.

The third indicator focused on students and teachers is the “Proportion of Teachers with PhD” (SV3). At 22 of 100 faculties, at least 75% of teachers have PhD degrees. However, a surprising fact is that only 45% of university teachers in Slovakia have complete third level of higher education and at as many as 38 faculties, not even two third of teachers have PhD degrees. Within the groups, the situation differs. The largest number of

6

teachers with PhD degrees (as many as 90%) works at the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work in the SOC group.

Indicator SV4 – “The number of professors and associate professors divided by the number of all teachers” shows how many pedagogues having the highest scientific rank are among the faculty teaching staff. This ratio varies between 10% and 60% with great differences among individual faculties in each group. For most of the faculties, the value of this ratio is approximately in the middle of the interval. More than half of the professors and associate professors in the teaching staff are at only four of the faculties under assessment, of which two are from the HUM group (the VSMU Theatre Faculty and the TVU Faculty of Theology), one from the TECH group (the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology) and one from the AGRO group (the TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry).

The average age of professors measured in the SV5 indicator ranges from 51 to 65 years. For most of the faculties, its value is approximately in the middle of the interval. For SV5 as well, there are differences in the average age of the professors within individual groups. The “youngest” Slovak faculty is the PU Faculty of Greek Catholic Theology with the average age of professors being 51 years. In general, the age of professors in Slovak universities is relatively high.

The “Applications for study” subgroup assessed the extent, to which education institutions are popular among prospective students. Most students relative to planned available places (SV6) traditionally apply at faculties in the HUM and SOC groups. For the most popular faculties, this is as many as 9 (the TvU Faculty of Philosophy) and 8 (the SPU Faculty of Economics and Management) students per planned place. While traditionally fewer students apply at NAT, TECH and AGRO (for the best faculties, this ranges between two and three applicants per planned place), for the TU Košice Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology (TECH), there are as many as 8 applicants per place available. In the MED group, there are 5.5 students per planned place at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine. The actual students’ interest in studying at a particular faculty was measured by comparing the number of registrations to the number of admissions to the given faculty (SV7). Similarly as with the SV6 indicator, most students register with faculties in the SOC, HUM and MED groups. Concerning the scientific performance and quality of science, it can be concluded that only the UK Faculty of Pharmacy was most popular among students in its group (SV7) being, at the same time, the most successful in scientific creativity (in publishing and publication citations

VV1 – VV3a). No other faculty in other groups managed to similarly combine the success in scientific production with the attractiveness for students. Thus, apparently, students do not consider the institution’s research production to be the decisive factor. Although faculties with monopolistic position have an advantage from this point of view, conclusions can be made as to which faculties are the first choice for the applicants.

The faculties that are most popular with foreign students (SV8) are not identical with those most popular with Slovak students (SV7). In general, however, faculties of the HUM groups are most popular again, including particularly higher education institutions of art and theology (the best being the VŠMU Faculty of Music and Dance with 15.8% of foreign students). The MED group is dominated by the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine with 12.4% of foreign students. The highest percentage of students with other than Slovak citizenship (18%) is at the University of Veterinary Medicine with the other faculties in the AGRO group, similarly as in the TECH and NAT groups, not reaching even two percent. In the SOC group, the most successful Faculty is that of International Relations having 4.6% of foreign students.

There can be no doubt that as in the past, universities are in the present the heart and the driving force for the development of the knowledge-based society. They are irreplaceable for the prosperity and positive development of the fast changing world. There are however, two requirements for them to carry out their tasks: that their free spirit is preserved and that the education and research that they provide and carry out have a high level of quality. This study may also encourage universities and their faculties to think about their performance and to try to find ways to improve.

Once again we are happy to be able to conclude that in comparison to 2004, nearly all Slovak university faculties, almost in all parameters, improved their performance during the year. This has been undoubtedly contributed to by the improving economic situation of the country, in certain cases also by the ongoing international evaluation of Slovak higher education institutions in cooperation with the European University Association (EUA). The ARRA study is trying to reflect and help monitor this development. We can only hope now that the situation will continue to improve. It would be very daring to believe that two assessments are sufficient to make substantial conclusions on the development trends. However, it is undoubted that if such assessment continues to be conducted for a longer period of time, it will be easier to see as to which direction the Slovak higher education is taking.

7

1 Introduction ARRA is submitting, to the public, a report assessing public higher education institutions and faculties for 2005. In its starting points and goals, the report followed up the basic principles and history of higher education institutions’ rankings reflected in the first ARRA report on higher education institutions for 2004. It seems that “rankings serve a variety of purposes, good and bad. Rankings are also inevitable – in the era of massification, those who finance higher education and the public want to know which academic institutions are the best.”2 It is also true that the ranking boom does not go unnoticed by any of the groups involved.

It is interesting that even those higher education institutions that have negative attitudes to ranking impatiently await the results (e.g., of the “Shanghai Ranking”3) to see their ranking and to benchmark with other higher education institutions of the world. The reasons are varied; however, the main ones include:

• curiosity as to how we are doing in comparison with the world (unfortunately, there is no Slovak higher education institution among the first 500 higher education institutions published in the Shanghai Ranking),

• massification of higher education and its impact on the quality of education and research,

• competition for students – domestic and, to an ever greater extent, international,

• competitiveness, • good ranking supporting a good starting

position in various negotiations, e.g., on funding, etc.

A remarkable finding4 is that there is a strong correlation between the research background of a leader and the position of the university in a world league table. The higher the ranking of the university, the more likely it is that the citations of its president will also be high (presidents of the top fifty have 2.5 times more citations on average than those of the bottom fifty). Obviously, as everywhere, there are exceptions from this correlation, particularly in the field of art and humanities. However, the trend is apparent.

ARRA is convinced that besides information on the ranking of the higher education institutions or their faculties in tables (throughout the text, only public higher education institutions and their faculties are analysed), it is crucial that there is a continuous discussion on higher education institutions’ quality. ARRA is pleased to state that the discussion initiated following the publication of the 2005 Report as well as the subsequent seminar of invited participants were held – apart from a few emotional reactions – in a constructive spirit, particularly with the objective of trying to analyse the situation and find paths leading to a higher quality of our higher education.

Two events need to be added to the history of ranking, which events are of crucial importance for this process. The first was the conference at Leiden University on 16 February 2006 entitled “The Challenges of University Ranking. How can we identify

2 Altbach, Ph. G., International Higher Education, 42, 6 (2006). 3 http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn 4 Goodall, A., International Higher Education. 42, 3, (2006).

the best universities in the world?” On an invitation from the presidium of the International Ranking Expert Group (IREG), ARRA became a member of this expert body and took part in the international conference “Methodology and Quality Standards of Rankings”, which was held on 19 May 2006 in Berlin and was attended by nearly 50 experts from all over the world. At this conference, principles of rankings were agreed for the first time5. Being a member of IREG, ARRA is trying to adopt these international principles to the extent permitted by the present Slovak situation.

Also the European principles of quality assurance, adopted in 2005 in Bergen by ministers of education within the Bologna Process6, are relevant for the higher education and research quality assessment.

In addition to new features in the field of ranking on the international level, ARRA brings its own extension of this year’s assessment process. A decision was made to extend the higher education institutions assessment based on publicly available information with assessment from students’ point of view. To this end, ARRA prepared an anonymous student survey in cooperation with GfK – Market Research Institute jointly with CKM and with the support from the Orange Account Foundation. The results of this survey will be published separately in the first quarter of 20077. GfK offered the faculties the possibility of modifying the questionnaire, asking their own exclusive questions and gaining access to all data gathered about the faculty. Of all faculties approached, 18 confirmed cooperation. Although some of them lack lists of students’ e-mail addresses, which is a necessary condition for a faculty’s participation in the survey, it is a positive finding that several such faculties will shortly compile a database of addresses also on the basis of this request. Three faculties responded explicitly negatively, the rest did not respond. An overview of individual faculties’ responses is shown in Table 1.

ARRA is grateful for the cooperation received from all faculties that enabled it to approach the students or at least showed a willingness to cooperate, even if their technical conditions did not enable such cooperation after all. Sadly, on the basis of the above it seems that only less than 20% of Slovak higher education institutions’ faculties are interested in knowing the opinion of their students on what and how they are doing. Such disinterest in students’ opinion by faculties exceeds the most pessimistic expectations. ARRA appreciates the cooperation and support from the University Student Council.

5 The Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education, CEPES, CHE, IHEP, Berlin, 2006. 6 http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050221_ENQA_report.pdf 7 In the case of student questionnaires, ARRA approached also private higher education institutions, as the students’ view of a higher education institution is equally important for public as well as private higher education institutions. For explanation of reasons for which ARRA is not yet assessing private higher education institutions, see below in the text.

8

Table 1: Faculties that responded to the offer of participation in the student survey Are interested

Faculty of International Relations University of Economics in Bratislava Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina Faculty of Philosophy Catholic university in Ružomberok Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University in Bratislava

Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica

International Business College IMS in Prešov

Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Economics Technical university in Košice

Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava

Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Arts Comenius University in Bratislava Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications

University of Žilina

Faculty of Business Management University of Economics in Bratislava Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology

Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen Faculty of Education University of Trnava

Are not interested Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in TrenčínFaculty of Law Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica

Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra

9

2 The role of rankings The basic and common characteristic of all foreign approaches to rankings (ARRA’s assessment including) is that they attempt to provide information to the general public, in particular to prospective students. The objective is to help them select a suitable school or faculty and/or area of study or study programme. Ranking is not in principle an activity carried out for its own sake to put universities into an order (although such evaluations are also published). Ranking is, or is trying to be, an aid for people who are choosing a place to study and need orientation in the education marketplace.

No ranking system can automatically identify the best faculty or university for an applicant but the information provided can be of great assistance in their decision-making. It appears that at present, the position of a school in this or that ladder is a secondary factor in their choice of where to study. This is applicable also to countries where ranking has a longer tradition than in Slovakia. The main factor is whether the given higher education institution will enable them to study the area of study that they are interested in. It is only after that – if there are a number of providers – that they start to consider other criteria such as the availability of accommodation, the costs associated with study, the attractiveness of the place of study, the options for sports, cultural and other activities and also the standing of the faculty or the university among other institutions. This is one of the reasons why several ranking agencies included “calculators” in their websites that can be used to increase or reduce the weight of individual criteria, to choose those that the applicant considers important8. ARRA too, in cooperation with the TREND weekly, provides this option as described below.

In addition to providing information to the public and prospective students, assessments of quality aim to increase competition among universities through their output so that – as in the world's advanced economies – prospective students are guided not only by the geographical proximity of a university but also the quality of the education that it provides. We expect that the importance of quality factors will increase hand in hand with the complexity and the technical and intellectual demands of the Slovak economy.

The second common characteristic of assessments is that although they use different numbers of criteria, there is nearly always a relatively small number of groups of criteria that reflect the institution’s performance in research and education and related parameters, perspectives on the institution from within (students and the academic community) and also from outside (e.g. employers, or even the school’s own graduates).

Another very important characteristic of ranking is that every such assessment must always be looked at in terms of the criteria that it uses. In other words, every ranking corresponds only to the criteria that are chosen and used. In addition every compiler (but also every reader) may consider (and then also makes) certain

8 For example: - www.che.de/cms/?aetObiect=2&aetName=CHE-RankinQ&QetLanQ=de, - www.daad.de/deutschland/studium/hochschulrankina/04690.en.html, - www.studiekeuzel23.nl/web/site/default.aspx, - www.etrend.sk

indicators significantly more important than others (e.g. research performance is given a higher value than, say, the number of students per teacher) and may therefore give them a different weighting. This can in turn make a fundamental difference in the ranking of the faculties and universities in “his/her” resulting table. For this reason ranking provides an image of the university and its status alongside other universities entirely in terms of the selected indicators. However, everyone involved in creating ranking tries to choose a range of criteria and indicators that will be relevant to the broadest possible group of recipients.

This is one of the reasons why ARRA does not assign weights to individual indicators. All indicators enter the assessment within their group with the same weight. However, in cooperation with the Trend weekly, the interested parties are able (through www.arra.sk or www.etrend.sk) to connect to a specially set up calculator and to rank the faculties with custom weights assigned to individual criteria.

A number of universities insist that this form of comparison has limited significance because every university is unique and special in some way, or has its own specific characteristics. One could agree with the opinion that there are no two identical universities in the world. However, if there are, for example, four faculties of law, five faculties of philosophy or three faculties of medicine, providing the same degree for the same form of higher education in the same area or programme, a question could be asked which of them is the best in their group, which of them is outstanding and in what respect.

It is also true that it is not possible to compare the incomparable, such as universities with 13 different faculties and a highly focused institution that is not even divided into faculties. An appropriate solution to this situation is the categorisation of the science and technology subjects according to the “Frascati Manual”. In the OECD countries (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), the Frascati Manual has been used to categorise subjects in science and technology since 1963.9

In the final analysis, it is up to prospective students to decide, just as employers must decide when employing graduates. And it is always better if decisions are taken on the basis of accessible and verified data rather than traditional, often inaccurate and incomplete impressions or feelings associated with the given institution. The ARRA assessment has the ambition of becoming one of several bases serving as a source of information for decision-making.

9 The authorship of this manual is quite often attributed incorrectly. Because the first meeting of OECD experts in this matter took place in 1963 in the Italian village of Frascati, the work that was created there was called the Manual from Frascati or The Frascati Manual.

10

3 On assessment methodology

3.1 Basic principles for assessment of higher education institutions ARRA’s approach in assessing Slovak universities is the same as is used elsewhere in the world. It is based on three pillars. The first is quantitative information in the public domain, which is generally accepted as a reliable indicator of academic quality. The second is an independent view of the results. The third is a group (cluster) approach to the assessment of faculties and higher education institutions.

The procedure that ARRA has used in assessing public universities (when talking about Slovak universities from now on, only public institutions will be referred to) in Slovakia in 2005, was based on the following steps:

• the selection of indicators for the quality of education and research in individual universities and the assignment of a certain number of points to each faculty for the performance in each indicator (indicators are arranged into groups and each group of indicators gained a certain number of points),10

• the division of faculties into six groups according to the Frascati Manual (details given below) in order to compare only faculties that have the same orientation and similar working conditions,

• assigning point scores to faculties (the ranking of faculties in individual groups according to the Frascati Manual is based on average points score in individual groups of indicators),

• calculating point scores for the higher education institutions in individual groups according to the Frascati Manual (the ranking of the higher education institution in the given group is given by the average assessment of all its faculties included in that group).

The most recent version of the Frascati Manual of 200211 divides higher education institutions’ subjects into 6 groups:

a) natural sciences, b) engineering and technology, c) medical sciences, d) agricultural sciences, e) social sciences, f) humanities.

From 1 June 2005 this division will be included in Slovak law12, i.e. also in the Slovak research community.13

After the introduction of such a division into the ranking, it is clear that theological faculties will not be compared with medical faculties or technically oriented

10 Certain new indicators were included in 2006. However, to be able to compare and hence to identify the trends in individual institutions’ development, institutions are ranked also based on exclusively the quality indicators used last year. 11 Frascati Manual, 6th Edition, OECD 2002, Paris, p. 67. 12 Act No. 172/2005 on the Organisation of State Support for Research and Development and Additions to Act No. 575/2001 on the Organisation of Government Activities and the Organisation of the Central State Administration as amended. 13 A more detailed breakdown is given in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997, UNESCO, November 1997, and is described below in the text.

faculties with social science faculties. However, it will be possible to compare faculties with the same (or similar) scientific orientation side by side. Prospective students will thus be able to determine which faculty ranks highest among those providing education in their area of interest. ARRA will also separately publish, in overview tables, the performance of faculties in groups of related criteria, which will facilitate comparison based on what the specific applicant (or other recipient of the report) considers important.

To make it even more obvious that what is important is the ranking within groups and that in Slovak situation, universities cannot be compared among themselves, as of this year, ARRA will not be publishing the cumulative table ranking all Slovak public higher education institutions. At the same time, however, it is valid that the quality of a higher education institution is determined by the quality of its faculties. ARRA, therefore, like in the last year, will rank the higher education institutions on the basis of the results of faculties included according to the Frascati Manual.

The criteria used by ARRA are identical with or similar to those used elsewhere in the world. Of course, they reflect certain specific features of Slovak higher education. ARRA used only information in the public domain and did not request information from individual faculties in 2006. The ranking produced is based on official data and domestic and foreign sources in the public domain.

3.2 Classification of faculties The faculties of Slovak universities were divided into groups based on their field of study using the definitions given in the Frascati Manual as follows:

• natural sciences (NAT) consisting of mathematics and computer sciences, physical sciences, chemical sciences, biological sciences and Earth and related environmental sciences,

• engineering and technology (TECH) consisting of civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, and other engineering and technological sciences,

• medical sciences (MED) including basic medicine and dentistry, clinical medicine and pharmaceutical sciences (nursing and healthcare are included in the social sciences),

• agricultural sciences (AGRO) consisting of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, veterinary medicine and allied subjects,

• social sciences (SOC) including psychology, economics, educational sciences, law, political science, nursing, healthcare, other social sciences.

• humanities (HUM) are history, languages and literature and other humanities.

Some higher education faculties are difficult to categorise into a particular subject area due to the diversity of their components. Their various components (e.g., departments) conduct activities lying in multiple subject areas. An example is the faculties of philosophy, whose activities are included in both the humanities and social sciences groups. They were classified according to the subject area group, into which the majority of activities fall. It was mentioned in the last year’s report that if the dean of a particular faculty contacts ARRA to request that

11

the faculty that he or she manages should be classified in a different subject area, ARRA considers the request. The reclassification of the Žilina University Faculty of Management and Informatics has been requested by its dean and ARRA accommodated this request. No similar request occurred so far.14

14 Part of the professional public objected to the inclusion of the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work among social science faculties, particularly because most of its research activities are focused on medicine and healthcare disciplines. However, faculties of this type are typical representatives of social science faculties. The fact that the number of publications, in particular, by two representatives of the particular faculty in the field of drugs comprises nearly half of the sum of publications by all remaining 39 faculties of the social science group, and the number of citations is even more than four times higher, is a sad indication of these faculties’ condition; however, it cannot serve as a reason to change a procedure used generally in the world.

12

Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA

University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Akadémia umení (Academy of Arts)

www.aku.sk AU

HUM Fakulta dramatických umení (Faculty of Dramatic Arts)

DramUm AU

HUM Fakulta muzických umení (Faculty of Performing Arts)

MuzUm AU

HUM Fakulta výtvarných umení (Faculty of Fine Arts and Design)

VýtvarUm AU

Ekonomická univerzita (University of Economics)

www.euba.sk EU BA

SOC Fakulta hospodárskej informatiky (Faculty of Economic Informatics)

HospInfo EU BA

SOC Fakulta medzinárodných vzťahov (Faculty of International Relations)

MedzVzťah EU BA

SOC Fakulta podnikového manažmentu (Faculty of Business Management)

PodnMan EU BA

SOC Národohospodárska fakulta (Faculty of National Economy)

NárHosp EU BA

SOC Obchodná fakulta (Faculty of Commerce)

Obchod EU BA

SOC Podnikovohospodárska fakulta (Faculty of Business Economics)

PodnHosp EU BA

Katolícka univerzita (Catholic University)

www.ku.sk KU

HUM Filozofická fakulta (Faculty of Philosophy)

Fil KU

SOC Pedagogická fakulta (Pedagogical Faculty)

Pedag KU

HUM Teologická fakulta (Faculty of Theology)

Teol KU

Prešovská univerzita (University of Prešov)

www.unipo.sk PU

HUM Fakulta humanitných a prírodných vied (Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences)

HumPrír PU

SOC Fakulta manažmentu (Faculty of Management)

Manag PU

SOC Fakulta športu (Faculty of Sports)

TV PU

SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva (Faculty of Health Care)

Zdravotnícka PU

HUM Filozofická fakulta (Faculty of Arts)

Fil PU

HUM Gréckokatolícka bohoslovecká (Greek Catholic Theological Faculty)

Greckokat PU

SOC Pedagogická fakulta (Faculty of Education)

Pedag PU

HUM Pravoslávna bohoslovecká fakulta (Orthodox Theological Faculty)

Pravosl PU

Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita (Slovak University of Agriculture)

www.spu.sk SPU

AGRO Fakulta agrobiológie potravinových zdrojov (Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources)

Agro SPU

AGRO Fakulta biotechnológie a potravinárstva (Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences)

BiotPotr SPU

SOC Fakulta ekonomiky a manažmentu (Faculty of Economics and Management)

EkonomMan. SPU

SOC Fakulta európskych štúdií a regionálneho rozvoja (Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development)

Eur.ŠT. SPU

AGRO Fakulta záhradníctva a krajinného inžinierstva (Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering)

Záhrad SPU

TECH Mechanizačná fakulta (Faculty of Agricultural Engineering)

Mech SPU

13

Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued) University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Slovenská technická univerzita (Slovak University of Technology)

www.stuba.sk STUBA

TECH Fakulta architektúry (Faculty of Architecture)

Archit STUBA

TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky (Faculty of Electrical Engineering)

Elektr STUBA

TECH Fakulta chemickej a potravinárskej technológie (Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology)

ChemTechn STUBA

NAT Fakulta informatiky a informačných technológií (Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies)

Infor.aInf.Tech. STUBA

TECH Materiálovotechnologická fakulta (Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology)

MatTechn STUBA

TECH Stavebná fakulta (Faculty of Civil Engineering)

Stav STUBA

TECH Strojnícka fakulta (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)

Stroj STUBA

Technická univerzita Košice (Technical University of Košice)

www.tuke.sk TUKE

SOC Ekonomická fakulta (Faculty of Economics)

Ekonom TUKE

TECH Fakulta BERG (Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology)

Ban TUKE

TECH Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics)

Elektr TUKE

HUM Fakulta umení (Faculty of Arts)

Umení TUKE

TECH Fakulta výrobných technológií (Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies)

VýrTech TUKE

TECH Hutnícka fakulta (Faculty of Metallurgy)

Hutn TUKE

TECH Letecká fakulta (Faculty of Aeronautics)

Let TUKE


Stav TUKE


Stroj TUKE

Technická univerzita Zvolen (Technical University in Zvolen)

www.tuzvo.sk TUZV

AGRO Drevárska fakulta (Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology)

Drev TUZV

NAT Fakulta ekológie a environmentalistiky (Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences)

Ekolenv TUZ

TECH Fakulta environmentálnej a výrobnej techniky V (Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology)

EnvirTech TUZ

AGRO Lesnícka fakulta (Faculty of Forestry)

Les TUZV

Trenčianska univerzita A. Dubčeka (Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín)

www.tnuni.sk

TUAD

TECH Fakulta mechatroniky (Faculty of Mechatronics)

MechTron TUAD

TECH Fakulta priemyselných technológií (Faculty of Industrial Technologies)

PriemTechn TUAD

SOC Fakulta sociálno-ekonomických vzťahov (Faculty of Social and Economic Relations)

SocEkon TUAD

TECH Fakulta špeciálnej techniky (Faculty of Special Technology)

ŠpecTechn TUAD

14

Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued)

University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Trnavská univerzita (University of Trnava)

www.truni.sk TVU

SOC Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce (Faculty of Health Care and Social Work)

ZdravSoc TVU


Fil TVU


Pedag TVU

SOC Právnicka fakulta (Faculty of Law)

Práv TVU

HUM Teologická fakulta (Faculty of Theology)

Teol TVU

Univerzita Komenského (Comenius University)

www.uniba.sk UK

HUM Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta (Evangelical Theological Faculty)

Evanj UK

SOC Fakulta managementu (Faculty of Management)

Manag UK

NAT Fakulta matematiky, fyziky a informatiky (Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics)

FMFI UK

SOC Fakulta sociálnych a ekonomických vied (Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences)

SocEkon UK

SOC Fakulta telesnej výchovy a športu (Faculty of Physical Education and Sports)

TV UK

MED Farmaceutická fakulta (Faculty of Pharmacy)

Farm UK


Fil UK

MED Jesseniova lekárska fakulta (Jessenius Faculty of Medicine)

JessenLek UK

MED Lekárska fakulta (Faculty of Medicine)

Lek UK


Pedag UK


Práv UK

NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta (Faculty of Natural Sciences)

Prír UK

HUM Rímskokatolícka cyr.-met. bohoslovecká fakulta (Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and Methodius)

RímsKat UK

Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa (Constantine the Philosopher University)

www.ukf.sk UKF

NAT Fakulta prírodných vied (Faculty of Natural Sciences)

Prír UKF

SOC Fakulta sociálnych vied (Faculty of Social Sciences and Health)

Soc UKF

SOC Fakulta stredoeurópskych štúdií (Faculty of Central European Studies)

Stredoeur.Št. UKF


Fil UKF


Pedag UKF

Univerzita Mateja Bela (Matej Bel University)

www.umb.sk UMB

SOC Ekonomická fakulta (Faculty of Economics)

Ekonom UMB

HUM Fakulta humanitných vied (Faculty of the Humanities)

Hum UMB

SOC Fakulta politických vied (Faculty of Political Sciences)

Polit UMB


Prír UMB

HUM Filologická fakulta (Faculty of Philology)

Filolo UMB


Pedag UMB


Práv UMB

15

Table 2: Classification of faculties (or universities) into subject areas according to ARRA (continued) University Group Faculty (web) Abbreviation Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika (Pavol Jozef Šafárik University)

www.upjs.sk UPJŠ

SOC Fakulta verejnej správy (Faculty of Public Administration)

VerSpr UPJŠ

MED Lekárska fakulta (Faculty of Medicine)

Lek UPJŠ


Práv UPJŠ

NAT Prírodovedecká fakulta (Faculty of Natural Sciences)

Prír UPJŠ

Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda (University of St. Cyril and Methodius)

www.ucm.sk UCM

SOC Fakulta masmediálnej komunikácie (Faculty of Mass Media Communication)

MasMed UCM


Prír UCM


Fil UCM

Univerzita veterinárskeho lekárstva (University of Veterinary Medicine)

AGRO www.uvm.sk UVL

Vysoká škola múzických umení (Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts)

www.vsmu.sk VŠMU

HUM Divadelná fakulta (Faculty of Theatre Arts)

Divadelná VŠMU

HUM Filmová a televízna fakulta (Faculty of Film and Television)

FilmTel VŠMU

HUM Hudobná a tanečná fakulta (Faculty of Music and Dance)

HudTan VŠMU

Vysoká škola výtvarných umení (Academy of Fine Arts and Design)

HUM www.vsvu.sk VŠVU

Žilinská univerzita (University of Žilina)

www.utc.sk ŽU

TECH Elektrotechnická fakulta (Faculty of Electrical Engineering)

Elektr ŽU

SOC Fakulta PEDAS (Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications)

Pedas ŽU


Prír ŽU

SOC Fakulta riadenia a informatiky (Faculty of Management and Informatics)

Riadenia ŽU

TECH Fakulta špeciálneho inžinierstva (Faculty of Special Engineering)

ŠpecInž ŽU


Stav ŽU


Stroj ŽU

After discussions with higher education institutions and with the expert public, ARRA carried out two modifications in the assessment. It decided not to assess faculties that had not had at least one complete education cycle completed in 2005, i.e., those that were formed in 2003 and afterwards. At the same time, it decided to assign compensation points to more recently established faculties (established in 1996 – 2002) in criteria concerning longer periods (that is, VV1, VV2, VV3, and VV3a) depending on the length of their existence. The compensation points will not be apparent in data charts but in assignment of points in individual criteria. For example, a faculty existing for 4 years having 4 publications per creative worker will be assessed in the

VV1 criterion as if it had 10 publications (the number of publications will be divided by the number of years of faculty’s existence and multiplied by ten, i.e., the length of the period under assessment). An overview of the changes is shown in Tables 3 and 4.

In this year either, ARRA does not assess private higher education institutions. The reason is the absence of comparable data and the fact that an overwhelming majority of them has been in existence for a period shorter than 3 years. However, the assessment of private higher education institutions and their comparison to the public ones is a task faced by ARRA in the forthcoming future.

16

Table 3: Faculties not assessed in 2006 University Faculty Established Catholic University Faculty of Health Care 2004 University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004 University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004 Slovak Technical University Faculty of Informatics and Information

Technologies 2004

Technical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2004 Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004 Catholic University Faculty of Theology 2003

Table 4: Faculties assigned compensation points in 2006 University Faculty Established Compensation

factor Catholic University Faculty of Philosophy 2002 10/4 Catholic University Pedagogical Faculty 2002 10/4 University of Prešov Faculty of Health Care 2002 10/4 Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of Biotechnology and Food

Sciences 2002 10/4

Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development

2002 10/4

Comenius University Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences 2002 10/4 Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of SocialSciences and Health 2002 10/4 University of Žilina Faculty of Special Engineering 2002 10/4 University of Economics Faculty of International Relations 2000 10/6 Technical University of Košice Faculty of Arts 1999 10/7 University of Trnava Faculty of Law 1999 10/7 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University Faculty of Public Administration 1997 10/7

3.3 Criteria The criteria, by which ARRA produced its rankings, focus on the intensity of performance rather than on the overall performance. For example, one of the criteria is the total number of publications by the given faculty listed in the Web of Knowledge database produced by the company Thomson Scientific Co. (“WoK” )15 divided by the number of creative workers in the faculty (teachers and researchers). If the number of creative workers did not divide the overall number of publications, the size of the faculty would be the main influence and not the intensity of its work.

In 2005, ARRA used a number of criteria from those initially proposed and discussed with domestic and foreign experts, as shown in Table 5. A complete list of criteria, at which the assessment has the ambition to arrive, is given in the last year’s report. ARRA will asses the criteria from the field of student comfort in the spring of 2007, in the framework of the student survey16 already mentioned.

Some data were available only for universities as a whole and not for individual faculties (marked with asterisk in Table 5). Therefore, these are not included in the final assessment of the faculties.

15 http://www.thomson.com/scientific/scientific.isp. The Thomson Web of Knowledge (WoK) includes the following databases: Web of Science (WoS), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and Essential Science Indicators (ESI). Thanks to the SR Ministry of Education, all universities in Slovakia have access to this database, as do the university teachers and research and artistic employees, the Accreditation Commission, the SR Ministry of Education, and the Slovak Academy of Sciences. 16 The assessment in this field is based on the student survey. Considering the organisation of the academic year, an ideal time for data collection is November and December. However, data processing will take some time, therefore it cannot be included in this report and will be published separately.

Numbers for professors and associate professors refer to the relative average number of chairs occupied in 2005.

In other assessments as well, the evaluation of institutions with a focus on humanities – and partially also on social sciences – represents a certain problem. ARRA sought special criteria and internationally comparable, publicly accessible data for social sciences and humanities. Even “Shanghai” was not successful in this respect. Although The Times Higher Education Supplement17 uses a standard criterion of the number of citations per publication for social sciences, it does not do so for humanities. On the basis of discussions on this topic, ARRA approached the concerned faculties with a request of cooperation in this sensitive matter and it will seek a solution that will more accurately reflect the quality of these faculties’ scientific work. It is encouraging that several faculties have already promised such cooperation and have also proposed specific solutions.

Until the establishment of a new assessment method, if any, ARRA will proceed identically as in the previous year, that is, use identical criteria for both HUM and SOC as in other groups of faculties. One of the reasons for such a decision is the fact that among faculties focused on humanities and social sciences, there are several faculties achieving good assessment even under these relatively strenuous conditions, and had they been left out of the report or had the assessment using standard criteria been abandoned, it could have been these faculties that might feel aggrieved.

17 THES, 27 October 2006, p. 9

17

Table 5: Criteria for assessing universities

Area Code Description VV1 Number of publications in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker VV2 Number of citations in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 per creative worker VV2a Number of citations in WoK per publication in WoK for the years 1996 – 2005 VV3 Number of publications in WoK having at least 5 citations in WoK for the years

1996 – 2005 per creative worker VV3a Number of publications in WoK having at least 25 citations in WoK for the years

1996 – 2005 per creative worker Science and research VV4 Number of full-time PhD students per professor or associate professor in 2005

VV5 Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2003 – 2005 in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors

VV6 The number of full-time PhD students divided by the number of bachelor’s and master’s degree full-time students

VV7 Grant funding from the KEGA and VEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 VV8 Grant funding from the APVV agency per creative worker in 2005 VV9 Funding from foreign grants and state programmes per creative worker VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per creative worker SV1 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per teacher in 2005 SV2 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per professor or

associate professor in 2005 SV3 Proportion of professors, associate professors and other teachers with PhD to the

total number of teachers Study and SV4 Proportion of professors and associate professors to all teachers education SV5 Average age of active professors SV6 Ratio of the actual number of applications received to the planned number in

2005 SV7 Ratio of registered and admitted students in 2005 SV8 Proportion of foreign students SV9* Proportion of graduates unemployed for longer than 3 months of institution’s

graduates in 2005 SV10* Number of students taking part in study abroad (SAIA administered scholarship

programmes and the Socrates EC programme) per 100 students F1* Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per student

Financing F2* Proportion of the result of the university’s business activities to the overall costs of its main activities

F3* Proportion of the grants obtained to the overall costs of institution’s main activities

18

4 Basic characteristics of the indicators and their classification into groups

The indicators that ARRA uses are classified in a number of materially compact groups. For purposes of clarity, this section lists the basic characteristics of the individual indicators and classifies them into groups. The names of the groups provide sufficient explanation of why a given indicator belongs in its group. A more detailed analysis of the indicators along with values for individual faculties is in the part 7.18

4.1 “Science and Research” Category

4.1.1 “Publications and Citations” Group VV1 Number of scientific articles19 in proportion to the number of creative workers (CW), i.e. teachers and researchers and artistic employees with higher education, in periodicals registered in the WoK database for the years 1996 – 2005.

VV2 Number of citations in proportion to the number of CW. It reflects the intellectual strength of a higher education institution relative to its size. Only citations of papers included in VV1 are counted. Citations of papers published in or before 1995 will not be included. The decisive factor is whether the given work appeared in the database as at 31 December 2005.

VV2a A new criterion. Number of citations per publication. This is a standard indicator reflecting the response of a paper in the relevant scientific community but also the impact of the publication on scientific development in the given field.

VV3 The number of papers published in the years 1996 – 2005, for which more than 5 citations had been registered by 31 December 2005, divided by the number of CW in the faculty.

VV3a A new criterion. The number of papers published in the years 1996 – 2005, for which more than 25 citations had been registered by 31 December 2005, divided by the number of CW in the faculty.

4.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group VV4 The ratio of the number of PhD students in full time study to the number of professors and associate professors. As a rule, associate professors and professors supervise PhD students (and a small number of holders of scientific ranks IIa and I, about whom there is no information in the public

18 Unless stated otherwise, information given relates to 2005. 19 The terms publication and citation hereafter refer to publications from the stated database and citation in papers included in it.

domain) and this is one of the duties of their employment under the Higher Education Act20.

VV5 The annual average number of PhD graduates in the period 2003 – 2005 divided by the number of professors and associate professors in 2005. Since the number of graduates fluctuates from year to year, it has been necessary to expand the time scale for the collection of these data. As a baseline we took the minimum length of full time PhD study under applicable legislation, i.e., 3 years.

VV6 The proportion of the number of PhD students in full time study to the total number of students studying full time in 2005.

4.1.3 “Grant Success” Group VV7 Overall grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker.

VV8 Funding from AR (applied research), ISTC (international scientific and technical cooperation), and APVV (Slovak Research and Development Agency) grants per creative worker.

VV9 A new criterion. Funds from foreign grants included in the report on higher education for 2005 issued by the Ministry of Education, and from state programmes, the grants not being strictly linked to examination of independent scientific capacity and their purpose not necessarily being research.

VV10 Funds from grants examined by experts (i.e., grants from schemes in criteria VV7 and VV8) per creative worker.

4.2 “Study and Education” Category21

4.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group SV1 The number of students in full- and part-time study divided by the number of teachers. Points are awarded so that the lower the number of students per teacher the higher the number of points.

20 Act No. 131/2002 on Higher Education amending and supplementing certain laws as amended. 21 Where students are referred to in this category of indicators, unless otherwise indicated, it refers to students in all programmes studying both full and part time. Students are considered with the same weight, although the Ministry of Education, for their purposes, converts these figures using the coefficient 0.3 for part-time study and coefficient 2 for PhD study.

19

SV2

The number of students studying full and part time divided by the number of professors and associate professors. Points are awarded in the same way as for indicator SV1.

SV3 The proportion of teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers. It is assumed that every professor and associate professor in a functional position has a PhD.

SV4 The ratio of teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers.

SV5 The average age of active professors. Points are assigned so that the “youngest” faculty in a group gets 100 points and the remaining faculties are assigned points inversely proportionally to the average age of their professors. The term active professor refers to any person who occupies the functional position of a professor within the meaning of the law22.

4.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group SV6 Admission proceedings: the number of applications submitted to the planned number to be admitted, i.e. the number of applications to study divided by the number of study places offered by the faculty.

SV7 Admission proceedings: number of registered students to the number of applicants accepted, i.e. the number of applicants registered divided by the number of places offered for study.

SV8 Number of students with foreign state citizenship divided by the total number of students studying full time.

4.2.3 “University Level Criteria” Group SV9 Proportion of graduates unemployed for longer than 3 months of the total number of university graduates in 2005. The data are as at September 2006. This information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty (is available only for the university as a whole). ARRA slightly modified the assessment methodology taking into consideration all graduates unemployed for longer than 3 months rather than 6 months as in 2005. The reason is the higher total number of such graduates and therefore a higher informative value of such figures. Since in Slovakia, virtually all university graduates find employment, it is useful to look at the speed at which they succeed in doing so at individual education institutions. From this aspect, also the last year’s data were calculated for comparison.

SV10 Proportion of students taking part in study abroad through the Socrates EC programme and using scholarship 22 Act No. 131/2002 on Higher Education amending and supplementing certain laws as amended.

programmes administered by the SAIA agency, of the total number of students of the institution. This information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as a whole.

4.3 “Financing” Category F1 Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per one student of the institution. The last year’s criterion (running costs per one student) could not be used with respect to the absence of data. This information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as a whole.

F2 The proportion of the result of the university’s business activities to the overall costs of its main activities. This indicator reflects the proportion of the teaching and research expenditure that the institution is able to cover from its own business activities. This information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as a whole.

F3 The proportion of funds from public grants (VEGA, KEGA, AR, APVV, MVTS, state programmes, and international grants) to the overall costs of the higher education institution’s main activities. This indicator shows what part of teaching and research expenditure the institution is able to gain through the active efforts of its employees in free competition for public funds made available to support research and development. In comparison with the last year, state programmes and international grants were added, data on which were previously unavailable. This information is not included in the final assessment of the faculty, as it is available only for the higher education institution as a whole.

20

5 Method for the assessment of faculties and universities

The indicators listed in Chapter 5 have been selected to ensure that a higher score corresponds to higher performance. An exception is the special cases of SV1, SV2 and SV5, where this is vice versa. For example, one of the indicators is the number of students to one professor or associate professor. The higher this number is, the less likely it is that professors and associate professors can give individual attention to students. From the perspective of individual approach, which ARRA considers to be most beneficial for students, it is better if this indicator has a lower value. The number of students includes both full and part time students. The diploma of part-time students is equivalent to that of full-time students. The quality of education of both should be the same, therefore both full-time and part-time students should receive the same amount of teachers’ effort and time, even if in different forms.

The faculty that scored the highest (best) in a particular indicator is assigned 100 points. The other faculties receive points directly proportionally, with zero points being assigned to a zero value.

Each faculty of each university is assessed in the group to which it was assigned in Chapter 4.2. The overall ranking of faculties in each group depends on the average point scores in the groups of indicators.

The overall ranking of universities is based on the average point scores of their faculties. Details are given in later chapters.

As a new feature, tables are included showing the ranking of faculties within individual indicators. They are always given after an indicator group.

5.1 Illustration of the method for the assessment of faculties and universities An example for illustration purposes may be the indicator VV1 (number of publications per creative worker) and the AGRO faculty group (which covers a relatively small number of faculties (six); for other groups and further indicators, see the summary of results).

Table 6: Values of indicator VV1 for faculties in the AGRO group

Faculty

Creative workers

Publications

Ratio Points

University of Veterinary Medicine 182 601 3,30 100 Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen 56,6 72 1,27 96 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences SPU 163,6 153 0,94 28

Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU 82,3 69 0,84 25

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology TU Zvolen 122 78 0,64 19

Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU 66,4 13 0,20 6

The first column contains the name of the faculty,

the second column contains the number of creative workers, the third column gives number of publications in the WoK database for 1996 – 2005. The next column has the number of publications for each creative worker

followed by the number of points corresponding to this number in this group (calculated as the value in the fourth column divided by the highest value in the fourth column multiplied by one hundred and rounded to a whole number).23 The next step is to combine the values for indicators VV1, VV2, VV2a, VV3, and VV3a into summary values for the “Publications and Citations” indicator group (see Table 7). Table 7: Assignment of scores for the “Publications and Citations” indicator group (VV1, VV2, VV2a, VV3, VV3a) for faculties in the AGRO group

The first five columns show the number of points that each of the faculties gained in the “Publications and Citations” indicator group. The last column shows the number of points calculated as the average of all the indicators belonging to the group. The values in this column are transferred to the final assessment of the faculties in the group and the overall assessment of the universities.

A few more notes need to be given on this scheme for the assessment of faculties.

1. The most significant information is given in Table 6. This informs us the number of publications from the faculty for the 1996 – 2005 period. This number can be compared with foreign institutions or institutes of SAV (the Slovak Academy of Sciences) working in the same area24.

2. The measure of faculties’ success in a given indicator is the most successful Slovak faculty in the relevant group rather than a benchmark from abroad. Therefore it is the relevant data from the tables that need to be compared rather than the point score.

3. In the ideal scenario, the analysis would go even deeper and instead of faculties as a whole we would assess, and compare with each other and with foreign groups, relatively homogenous groups within the faculty corresponding approximately to fields of studies. Such an analysis cannot currently be performed using data in the public domain. It is however ARRA’s ambition for the future to assess also individual study programmes in similar/related areas.

23 It should be noted that the point scores for the SPU Faculty of Biotechnological and Food Sciences established in 2002 are calculated reflecting the compensated number of publications per creative worker, that is, (10/4) * (1.27) = 3.19. 24 Comparison of the outputs in the field of research and development by the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) institutes and certain faculties of public higher education institutions, November 2006, www.arra.sk.

Faculty VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Points University of Veterinary Medicine 100 95 37 100 90 85 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences SPU

96 100 100 81 0 76

Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen 25 40 61 42 100 54 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU

28 11 16 7 0 12

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology TU Zvolen

19 7 14 2 0 8

Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU

6 2 10 3 0 4

21

6 Commentary on individual indicators

ARRA is pleased to conclude that in nearly all parameters and for most of the faculties, an improvement occurred. Although this improvement is not a dramatic one, yet it shows positive trends in the development of the Slovak higher education system. One could accept the opinion that data from only two years of research is not sufficiently conclusive, that is, in many cases, it may involve natural fluctuations, or it may involve the influence of low figures. On the other hand, however, it is true that if almost all parameters move in the same direction, the overall development will also be positive with a great probability.

In the foreground, the graphs show data used in the current assessment; in the background, there are last year’s data for comparison in grey for each faculty. Red lines in the graphs indicate average values in the current year; grey dotted line shows the average in the last year. The legend in the graphs relates to the year, in which the figure was used in the assessment (2005 – used last year, 2006 – used this year). The data in graphs for two faculties may slightly differ also in the case that the same value is indicated for both – the number is rounded to fewer decimal places for clarity.

6.1 Science and research

6.1.1 “Publications and citations” Group

VV1 Number of scientific publications and number of creative workers

The scientific performance of individual faculties can be assessed in various ways. Around the world, the most widely recognised approach is to use the number of publications, citations, major awards, ability to obtain research funding in open competition. The VV1 criterion is based on the number of publications calculated for one creative worker (CW) in the time period 1996 to 2005, i.e., 10 years. The term creative worker refers to all teachers as well as research and artistic employees of the faculty with higher education. A publication is any work that is recorded in the WoK database for the ten-year period 1996 – 2005.

A paper is included in the ARRA analysis if at least one of its authors is an employee of a faculty of a public university in the SR25. The ARRA analysis does not take into consideration the number of authors of the given work (publication). A survey of the database shows that the average number of papers published by authors from public universities in SR increased gradually in the 1996 – 2005 period – in 1995 there were 999 papers and in 2005 the number had increased to 1,234.

In 2005, public universities in the SR had a total of 10,065 teachers and 1,239 research and artistic workers with higher education, representing a total of 11,304 creative workers. This means that for each worker, 0.11 papers were published in 2005. The results in the tables and graphs published in this ARRA report show that the average number of papers per creative worker considerably differs depending on faculty’s orientation.

25 Where the name of the author could not be linked to a faculty from the database, the link was made through the list of faculty employees on its website.

Table 8: Number of papers for the years 1996 – 2005 per one creative worker

A number of faculty employees, especially in the groups SOC and HUM, often publish their work in periodicals that are not included in the WoK database. This especially discriminates the faculties of arts, whose outputs do not include only scientific publications but particularly high-quality works of art26. Nevertheless, the ARRA analysis includes only papers from the WoK database. The reasons for this are as follows (see also note 14):

• the WoK database is in the public domain, which is in accordance with the principle of using data in the public domain,

• the inclusion of a journal in the WoK database provides a certain guarantee of quality, since inclusion is based on an assessment of the level of the published articles, the history of the periodical and the like,

• the WoK database is a source of bibliographic data that is recognised by the general academic community,

• the WoK database is available from any location in the world and the data it contains can be compared internationally,

• in each group of faculties there are faculties that have publications in the WoK database, which shows that it is possible to publish in periodicals that are in this database; the fears of discrimination in some faculties and fields of study are reduced by the fact that they are compared only within their own group and with faculties that have the same or a similar orientation,

• assessments of universities and social sciences in other countries27 are based on similar principles of records of publications in the WoK.

Other important scientific papers that WoK does not record are patents and monographs (or articles in monographs). We believe that these types of publication are included in the survey to a certain extent, even if indirectly. Monographs or chapters in them are produced mainly from the results of the scientific papers of their author or authors. These scientific results are as a rule also published in articles in recognized periodicals. However, as it was already mentioned, ARRA will deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner in the coming time.

A quite natural question to ask is whether the numbers stated in individual graphs and tables for indicator VV1 are low, average or high. Comparison with other assessments of a similar type in other countries led

26 To assess artistic outputs such as exhibitions, works of design art, film works, artistic performances, architectural projects, etc., ARRA will attempt to draw up a special methodology in discussion with the respective higher education institutions. 27 E.g., THES, 27 October 2006, p. 9.

Group

Publications 1996-2005

per creative worker

TECH NAT

AGRO MED SOC HUM

0,0 – 7,6 0,1 – 6,0 0,2 – 3,3 1,0 – 3,7 0,0 – 1,3 0,0 – 0,5

22

to the conclusion that they are on the low side. A serious answer to this question depends on a comparison with the faculties of other – foreign – universities or comparison with the results of non-university scientific institutions. A comparison of the three best faculties with the institutes of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV) in the relevant field according to the Frascati Manual likewise shows that – with a few exceptions – the results of university faculties are lower.

In all groups except for SOC, an increase of the average indicator occurred, with the NAT group having the most marked increase. The SOC group is interesting by having the value of the indicator increased for a large majority of faculties; in five cases a certain value of the indicator was recorded even by faculties that had zero in the last year. To a considerable extent, the average indicator is affected by the large decrease of the Trnava University Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work.

Number of publications per one creative worker in 2005 VV1

MED faculty group

Published papers per creative worker

3,7

1,5 1,5

1,0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

Farm

UK

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Jess

enLe

k U

K

2005

2006

23

NAT faculty group

AGRO faculty group


6,0

5,0

4,5

1,0 0,9 0,8 0,60,3 0,1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Prír

UPJ

Š

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UKF

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UCM

Info

r a

InfT

ech

STU

B A

Prír

ŽU

20052006


3,3

1,3

0,9 0,80,6

0,2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

Vet

erLe

k. U

VL

Bio

tPot

r. S

PU

Agr

o S

PU

Les

TUZV

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

2005

2006

24

TECH faculty group


0,00,00,00,00,10,10,10,10,20,20,20,30,30,30,40,60,60,7

1,62,1

2,67,6

0 2 4 6 8 10

ŠpecInž ŽU ŠpecTechn TUAD

Archit STUBAStav ŽU

VýrTech TUKEMech SPU

EnvirTech. TUZV Riadenia ŽU

Stroj ŽU Stroj TUKE

MechTron TUAD MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE Elektr ŽU

Stroj STUBA Ban TUKE

Stav STUBAElektr TUKE

PriemTech TUAD Elektr STUBA

Hutn TUKE ChemTechn.

2006 2005

25

HUM faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,01

0,04

0,05

0,05

0,11

0,33

0,35

0,50

0,51

0,54

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

Divadelná VŠMU

DramUm AU

FilmTel VŠMU

Filolo UMB

Greckokat.PU HudTan VŠMU

MuzUm AU

Pravosl.PU Teol KU

Teol.TVU Umení TUKE

VŠVU BL VýtvarUm AU

Fil UKF

Fil UCM

RímsKat UK Fil KU

Hum UMB

HumPrír PU Fil TVU

Evanj UK Fil UK Fil PU

20062005

26

SOC faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,020,020,020,030,040,050,050,070,080,100,120,120,130,140,170,19

0,240,25

0,380,440,460,48

0,520,64

1,29

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Manažment PU MasMed UCM

Pedag PU Pedag UKF

Pedas ŽU Práv TVU Práv UMB

Sredoeur.Št.UKF Športu PU

Pedag UMB SocEkon TUAD

Zdravotnícka PU Pedag KU Polit UMB Soc UKF

Práv UPJŠ Práv UK

Pedag UK EkonomManSPU

Ekonom UMB SocEkon UK

EurŠt SPU Manag UK

Pedag TVU VerSpr UPJŠ

TV UK PodnMan EU BA

MedzVzťah EU BAHospInfo EU BA

PodnHosp. EU BANárHosp. EU BA

Ekonom TUKE Obchod EU BA ZdravSoc TVU

20062005

27

VV2 Number of scientific publication citations per CW Citations represent another indicator of scientific performance that is widely accepted around the world, in particular of the response to the published results of the scientific work of individuals and work groups. In discussions of this indicator there have been a number of misunderstandings, which is why it is again appropriate to give more space to its explanation.

Citation of a paper is an evidence that the paper contributed, in its field, to extending the knowledge, that other scientists are aware of the paper, and that they use the information from such paper in further exploration28. With a certain measure of simplification, and apart from the differing citation rate for papers in various scientific fields, it can be said that the more citations of a paper occurs in the scientific community (that is, the greater is the response to the paper), the more the paper influenced its field of science, the more it contributed to extending the knowledge, and the more important it is. There are papers published that have no response (having zero citations), but there are also publications that have hundreds and thousands of citations29.

In the WoS database, every work is linked to information about the number of times and in which papers it has been cited. The citations of each author’s work can be looked up. Citations for all papers come only from the periodicals, for which WoK collects information. The papers whose citations are analysed here are precisely those papers that were included in indicator VV1, i.e., papers published in the years 1996 – 2005 and recorded in the WoK database. For example, if an author in a particular faculty published a work in 1994 (i.e. before the monitored period), which has a number of citations, neither this work nor its citations are included in the ARRA analysis. If the work was published in 2002, the work appears in indicator VV1 and its citations will be counted in indicator VV2.

This leads to a certain reduction in the number of citations but this is not considered to be a fundamental problem. The same conditions were applied to each university in the study. This reduction has also helped to capture the current situation, which is probably more important for today’s prospective students than the rich scientific history of the university from thirty years before.

Citations for papers published in the years 1996 – 2005 are accumulating in 2006 and will continue to accumulate in future years. The analysis of citations was carried out as at 31 December 2005, and therefore the set of citations includes only those from before this date.

A classic problem in analysing citations is excluding self-citations, i.e. citations of papers where at least one of the authors of the citing work is one of the authors of the cited work. When calculating the number of citations of the work of a given author, especially in career progression, self-citations are not taken into consideration.

28 Opinions are sometimes voiced that even papers with wrong results or attitudes are frequently cited just for their mistakes. It is true that there are such papers. However, it can be assumed that their number is not significant. 29 The highest cited paper of a Slovak scientist in the period of 1996 – 2005 was cited 249 times in the period under assessment. The paper is the following: Abreu, P., W. Adam, et al. (1996). “Performance of the DELPHI detector.” Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section a- Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment 378(1-2): 57-100; which was contributed to by a group of authors from the FMFI UK.

The ARRA analysis however includes all citations captured by the WoK, including self-citations. The available and suitable software for the analysis of publications and citations does not contain filters that could exclude self-citations, perhaps with the exception for the SCOPUS database, which, however, has its limitations as well. The time requirements for “manual” filtering would be extremely high; however, ARRA works on a solution to this problem. It can be expected, though, that the removal of self-citations would not have a significant effect on the results presented here, as the proportion of self-citations will be approximately the same at similar institutions30.

Just for information, employees of Slovak universities published a total of 12,172 papers that are recorded in WoK in the period 1996 – 2005. 7,326 citations of these papers were recorded. Of these 12,172 papers, however, 4,846 papers i.e. 40%, did not receive a single citation. This fact shows that even the papers’ own author did not cite it during the monitored period. Compared to the period of 1995 – 2004, when there were 3,823 such papers (30%, the total being 11,163), this is an increase by more than 1,000 papers (or ten percentage points) that no one noticed. Thus, although the quantitative indicator of the number of publications increased, their attractiveness for the world’s scientific community decreased. It is not without interest that the increase in the number of publications nearly coincides with the increase in the number of papers that no one noticed.

In the HUM group, only 7 faculties recorded any result (only 6 in 2004), with the other 16 (of which 8 are faculties of art) having no record. The situation is the same in the SOC group – 12 faculties out of a total of 36 did not record any data. However, the situation improved here as well; in 2004, as many as 19 faculties were without a record. In other words, it can be said that in the field of humanities and social science disciplines, creative workers are capable of publishing papers in journals included in the WoK database, this being with a certain response.

30 The citation analysis of certain randomly selected authors showed that for sufficient numbers of citations (several tens or hundreds), the number of self-citations does not exceed 5 – 7%. In the case of a low number of citations, the self-citations may play a greater role.

28

Number of citations per creative worker in 1996 – 2005

VV2 MED faculty group

NAT faculty group

Number of citations per creative worker

40,3

23,319,1

2,3 2,0 1,7 1,0 0,0 0,005

1015202530354045

FMFI

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UK

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UKF

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UCM

Info

r a

InfT

ech

STU

BA Prír

ŽU

2005

2006


6,25,0

4,2

15,9

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

k

UK

20052006

29

AGRO faculty group


6,5

2,7 2,7

0,8 0,5 0,10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7V

eter

Lek.

UV

L

Les

TUZV

Bio

tPot

r.SP

U

Agr

o SP

U

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

adSP

U

2005

2006

TECH faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,1

0,1

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,3

0,6

1,3

1,3

1,4

2,0

3,8

5,2

7,7

31,4

0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Stav ŽU

ŠpecInž ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Archit STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZV

Mech SPU

VýrTech TUKE

MechTron TUAD

Stroj ŽU

Riadenia ŽU

Stroj TUKE

Elektr ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE

Elektr TUKE

Stroj STUBA

Ban TUKE

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

20062005

30

HUM faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,01

0,03

0,06

0,09

0,14

0,27

0,38

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

Divadelná VŠMU

DramUm AU

Fil KU

Fil UKF

FilmTel VŠMU

Filolo UMB

Greckokat.PU

HudTan VŠMU

MuzUm AU

Pravosl.PU

RímsKat UK

Teol KU

Teol.TVU

Umení TUKE

VŠVU BL

VýtvarUm AU

Fil UCM

Hum UMB

Evanj UK

Fil TVU

Fil PU

Fil UK

HumPrír PU

20062005

31

SOC faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,010,010,010,010,020,030,030,030,030,040,040,040,070,080,090,160,170,180,210,22

0,735,98

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0

Manažment PUMasMed UCM

Pedag PUPedag UKF

Pedas ŽU Práv TVU

Práv UKPráv UMB

SocEkon TUADSredoeur.Št.UKF

Športu PUZdravotnícka PU

Pedag KU PodnMan EU BA

Soc UKF Pedag UK

Ekonom UMB EkonomManSPU

Pedag UMB Manag UK

VerSpr UPJŠ Práv UPJŠ Polit UMB

MedzVzťah EU BAPodnHosp. EU BA

SocEkon UKEurŠt SPU

Obchod EU BATV UK

Ekonom TUKENárHosp. EU BAHospInfo EU BA

Pedag TVU ZdravSoc TVU

20062005

32

VV2a Number of citations per publication according to WoK

VV2a is a new indicator making possible certain comparisons with the highest international level. Some of the more successful faculties of public universities in the SR are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Average number of citations per paper for certain faculties of public universities, 1996 – 2005

A comparison with other countries can be made fairly simply because THES31 uses the same methodology. First those of the best higher education institutions:

Table 10: Average number of citations per paper for some of the most successful universities in the world

Middle of the table in the stated journal:

Table 11: Average number of citations per paper for some other universities in the world University Average No. of citations

per paper (1995-2004)

University of British Columbia 10,1 Copenhagen University 8,7 La Sapienza University Roma 7,8 Osaka University 7,3

From this comparison32 we can see that not even the relatively successful faculties of Slovak public universities (apart from the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics) achieve a medium position in the average number of citations for a published paper. No changes occurred in this situation compared to 2004.

University Average No. of citations per

paper (1995-2004) University of British Columbia 10,1 Copenhagen University 8,7 La Sapienza University Roma 7,8 Osaka University 7,3

31 The Times Higher Education Supplement, 7 October 2005, p. 9. 32 Even if data for foreign universities for 1995 – 2004 are compared, during such long periods (10 years), significant changes in the results usually do not occur. This is the reason why, e.g., THES makes a transition to shorter, 5-years’ periods as of 2006.

It appears that in both the VV2 and VV2a indicators (which was not specially monitored last year, but ARRA analysed it for internal purposes for certain faculties), the situation slightly improved compared to 2004. This was reflected not only in an increase of the quantitative indicators for nearly all faculties but also by the emergence of more faculties that previously had a zero value of this indicator. For example, in the case of VV2, NAT was extended to cover the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences and the STU Faculty of Informatics and Information Technology; in SOC, even if the TvU Faulty of Healthcare and Social Work significantly decreased – although still leading, as many as 7 new faculties emerged (the SPU Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development, the UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences, the EU Faculty of Business Management, the UMB Faculty of Political Sciences, the UMB Faculty of Education, the UMB Faculty of Economics, and the UKF Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare).

It should be noted on the account of the TvU Faulty of Healthcare and Social Work as an extreme that its good results came thanks to a small group of experts who publish also in medical disciplines. The WoK database assigns these papers to this faculty and there is no reason for not counting these in as the performance of this faculty.

Faculty Average No. of citations per

paper (1996-2005) Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK

8,0

Faculty of Natural Sciences UK 4,3 Faculty of Pharmacy UK 4,3 Faculty of Medicine UPJS 4,1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA

4,1

Faculty of Natural Sciences UPJS 3,9 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK 3,7 Faculty of Medicine UK 3,5 University of Veterinary Medicine Košice 2,0

University Average No. of citations per paper (1995-2004)

Harvard University 20,6 Princeton University 17,7 Stanford University 17,3 University of California, Berkeley 16,0 ETH Zurich 14,0 Cambridge University 12,9 Oxford University 12,2

33

Number of citations per publication VV2a

MED faculty group

Number of citations per publication

4,3 4,1

3,73,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Jess

enLe

kU

K

Lek

UK

2006

NAT faculty group


8,0

4,33,9

3,1

2,11,6 1,6

0,3 0,20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UKF

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UC

M

Prír

ŽU

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

2006

34

AGRO faculty group


3,2

2,12,0

0,8 0,70,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

Les

TUZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Agro

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

2006

35

TECH faculty group


0,00,00,0

0,20,3

0,40,50,6

0,70,8

0,91,01,1

1,51,7

2,12,3

3,23,23,2

3,74,1

0 1 2 3 4 5

ŠpecTechn TUADŠpecInž ŽU

Stav ŽU Archit STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZVMech SPU

VýrTech TUKEMechTron TUAD

Elektr ŽU Stroj ŽU

MatTechn STUBA Stroj TUKERiadInf ŽUHutn TUKE

Elektr TUKEStav TUKEBan TUKE

Stroj STUBA Stav STUBA

PriemTech TUAD Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

36

HUM faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,130,20

0,250,260,26

0,541,15

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

Umení TUKE

DramUm AU

Filolo UMB

VýtvarUm AU

MuzUm AU

Greckokat.PU

VŠVU BL

FilmTel VŠMU

Divadelná VŠMU

Teol.TVU

RímsKat UK

HudTan VŠMU

Teol KU

Pravosl.PU

Fil UKF

Fil KU

Evanj UK

Fil UCM

Hum UMB

Fil TVU

Fil PU

Fil UK

HumPrír PU

2006

37

SOC faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,040,100,150,170,170,180,200,250,250,250,250,35

0,450,51

0,670,670,710,75

1,001,50

4,384,62

0 1 2 3 4 5

MasMed UCM SocEkon TUADManažment PU

Sredoeur.Št.UKFZdravotnícka PU

Práv UMB Športu PUPedas ŽU Práv TVU

Práv UKPedag UKF

Pedag PUPodnMan EU BA

MedzVzťah EU BAPodnHosp. EU BA

Ekonom UMB VerSpr UPJŠ

Pedag UKManag UKPedag KU Soc UKF

EkonomManSPU Obchod EU BAEkonom TUKE

NárHosp. EU BAHospInfo EU BA

Práv UPJŠ SocEkon UK

TV UKEur.Št. SPU

Polit UMB Pedag UMB Pedag TVU

ZdravSoc TVU

2006

38

VV3 Number of published papers with more than 5 citations per CW One of the criteria that can show the impact that faculties or universities have had on scientific progress around the world is to set a certain measure of response (number of citations) to publications by authors from the faculty. In the ARRA analysis, the original intention was to identify and analyse numbers of papers with a high number of citations, which could relate to the presence of strong scientific personalities, or top research groups, in individual faculties. WoK enables identifying such papers by fields of science. However, it turned out that according to WoK, there are no such papers in Slovakia. Even if one chooses only 50 as the minimum number of citations (and 50 and even more are examined as a standard), the majority of faculties in Slovak universities did not have even one such paper in the period from 1996 to 2005. For this reason, ARRA, taking into consideration the Slovak research community, decided to use a more generous threshold value in this evaluation period. This analysis includes the indicator VV3 so that it provides information on the number of papers with more than 5 citations per publication – and compared to the last year – a new indicator, VV3a, with the number of 25 citations per publication.

Among 100 faculties, only 39 (which is 2 more than in 2004), i.e., approximately two fifths, met the criterion of 5 citations per publication. It is encouraging that even in the HUM group, there are 3 such faculties (the PU Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, the UK Faculty of Philosophy, the PU Faculty of Philosophy; it should be emphasised again that 8 faculties in the group are faculties of art). Five faculties in the SOC group (the TvU Faculty of Education, which got before the TvU Faulty of Healthcare and Social Work, the EU Faculty of Economic Informatics, the EU Faculty of Business, the EU Faculty of National Economy) do have such papers. The UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics lead the NAT GROUP with a value of 2.0. The STU Faculty of Informatics and Information Technology (as a new, not assessed faculty) and the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences rank lowest in the table with a value of 0. In other groups, the situation is similar. In TECH the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology had a score of 2.2, which is the highest of any of the studied faculties. Compared to 2004, the situation improved here as well – out of 21 TECH faculties, this criterion is met by 14 (in 2004 this figure was only 8). In the case of MED faculties, the most successful is the UK Faculty of Pharmacy with 1, the Jessenius Faculty of Medicine had the score of 0.27.

For the sake of interest, we can again state that only 2,986 of the 12,172 papers produced by Slovak universities in the period 1996 – 2005 met the criterion33 (and more than half of these came from three faculties - the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences), i.e. for each creative worker there were 0.027 such papers per year34.

33 In 2004, there were 2,595 such papers. 34 In 2004, there was 0.023 such paper per creative worker.

39

Number of published papers with more than 5 citations per number of creative workers VV3

MED faculty group

Number of papers with more than 5 citations per creative worker

1,00

0,44 0,410,27

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2Fa

rm U

K

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Jess

enLe

kU

K

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


2,01

1,45

1,11

0,15 0,13 0,10 0,08 0,00 0,000,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

324,

9

187,

4

407,

0

119,

7

107,

0

58,4

51,9

38,8

101,

4

2005

2006

40

AGRO faculty group


0,43

0,180,14

0,03 0,02 0,010,000,050,100,150,200,250,300,350,400,450,50

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Les

TUZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Agro

SPU

Záhr

adSP

U

Dre

v TU

ZV

2005

2006

TECH faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,000,00

0,00

0,01

0,01

0,01

0,01

0,01

0,03

0,08

0,09

0,100,14

0,28

0,37

0,48

2,16

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Archit STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZV

Mech SPU

MechTron TUAD

Stav ŽU

ŠpecInž ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

Stroj ŽU

Elektr ŽU

Riadenia ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Stroj TUKE

Stav TUKE

Ban TUKE

Stroj STUBA

Elektr TUKE

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

41

HUM faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

0,000,00

0,010,01

0,02

0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020

Divadelná VŠMU

DramUm AU

Evanj UK

Fil KU

Fil TVU

Fil UCM

Fil UKF

FilmTel VŠMU

Filolo UMB

Greckokat.PU

HudTan VŠMU

Hum UMB

MuzUm AU

Pravosl.PU

RímsKat UK

Teol KU

Teol.TVU

Umení TUKE

VŠVU BL

VýtvarUm AU

Fil PU

Fil UK

HumPrír PU

2006

2005

42

SOC faculty group


0,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,000,000,000,00

0,020,020,02

0,30

0,31

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

Ekonom TUKE

Ekonom UMB

EkonomManSPU

EurŠt SPU

Manag UK

Manažment PU

MasMed UCM

MedzVzťah EU BA

Pedag KU

Pedag PU

Pedag UK

Pedag UKF

Pedag UMB

Pedas ŽU

PodnHosp. EU BA

PodnMan EU BA

Polit UMB

Práv TVU

Práv UK

Práv UMB

Práv UPJŠ

Soc UKF

SocEkon TUAD

SocEkon UK

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Športu PU

TV UK

VerSpr UPJŠ

Zdravotnícka PU

NárHosp. EU BA

Obchod EU BA

HospInfo EU BA

ZdravSoc TVU

Pedag TVU

2006

2005

43

VV3a Number of papers with more than 25 citations per CW

The VV3a criterion is similar to the VV3 criterion, but it is somewhat more stringent, as it reflects papers having 25 citations in the period under assessment. Such papers were published by 16 faculties of Slovak higher education institutions in 10 years, with 11,119 creative workers,

totalling 355. Nearly two thirds of such papers were produced by three above-mentioned faculties (the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences). In the HUM group, there is no faculty with a paper that would meet this criterion; in the SOC group, only the Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work has 5 similar papers. The graphs for these groups therefore do not need to be presented.

Number of published papers with more than 25 citations per number of creative workers

VV3a

MED faculty group

Number of papers with more than 25 citations

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,02

0,000

0,005

0,010

0,015

0,020

0,025

0,030

0,035

0,040

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Jess

enLe

kU

K

Lek

UK

2006

44

NAT faculty group


0,38

0,140,12

0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,000,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40FM

FI U

K

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UKF

Ekol

env

TUZ

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Prír

UC

M

Prír

UM

B

Prír

ŽU

2006

AGRO faculty group


0,014

0,003

0,000 0,000 0,000 0,0000,000

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,010

0,012

0,014

0,016

Les

TUZV

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Agro

SPU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

2006

45

TECH faculty group


0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,010,01

0,040,15

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12 0,14 0,16

Archit STUBAElektr TUKE

Elektr ŽU EnvirTech. TUZV

Hutn TUKEMatTechn STUBA

Mech SPU MechTron TUAD

PriemTech TUAD RiadInf ŽUStav TUKE

Stav ŽU Stroj TUKE

Stroj ŽU ŠpecInž ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUADVýrTech TUKE

Stav STUBAStroj STUBA

Ban TUKEElektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

46

Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group AGRO No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average 1 University of Veterinary

Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 100 95 37 100 90 84,5

2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 96 100 100 81 - 75,5

3 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 25 40 61 42 100 53,6 4 Faculty of Agrobiology and

Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 28 11 16 7 - 12,5

5 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 19 7 14 2 - 8,4

6 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 6 2 10 3 - 4,2

HUM No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average

1 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 62 100 100 100 - 72,3

2 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 94 72 47 76 - 57,9 3 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 100 37 23 73 - 46,7

4 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 94 17 11 - - 24,2

5 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 65 24 23 - - 22,4 6 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 21 7 22 - - 10,0

7 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 7 2 17 - - 5,4

8 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 25 - - - - 5,1

9 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and Methodius

Comenius University 10 - - - - 2,0

10 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 2 - - - - 0,4

11 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - - - - - 12 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts - - - - - -

13 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts - - - - - -

14 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov - - - - - -

15 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov - - - - - - 16 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice - - - - - - 17 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava - - - - - - 18 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University - - - - - -

19 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts - - - - - -

20 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts - - - - - -

21 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts - - - - - -

22 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design - - - - - -

MED No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average 1 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 100 100 100 100 100 100,0 2 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 40 39 97 32 33 48,1 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 42 31 76 35 20 40,7 4 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 27 26 98 27 20 39,6

NAT No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average

1 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University 83 100 100 100 100 96,7

2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 100 58 48 72 31 61,8 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 74 47 53 55 36 53,1 4 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 13 6 38 7 - 12,8

5 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 16 5 26 6 3 11,2

6 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 17 4 20 4 - 9

7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 11 3 20 5 - 7

8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 2 0 3 - - 1

47

Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group (continued) SOC No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average

1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 100 100 100 100 100 100,0

2 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 13 12 95 13 - 26,6

3 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development Slovak University of Agriculture 24 4 41 - - 13,8

4 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 50 3 5 3 - 12,0

5 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 18 3 38 - - 11,9

6 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 49 1 4 - - 10,7

7 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 37 4 10 2 - 10,4

8 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 34 4 11 2 - 10,2

9 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 40 3 8 - - 10,2

10 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 24 3 14 - - 8,3

11 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 35 1 3 - - 8,0

12 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 1 0 32 - - 6,9

13 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 21 1 5 - - 5,4

14 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations Matej Bel University 3 1 22 - - 5,0

15 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health

Constantine the Philosopher University 10 1 14 - - 4,8

16 Pedagogical Faculty Catholic University 6 0 14 - - 4,1

17 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 1 9 0 1 - -

18 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 4 1 14 - - 3,8 19 Faculty of Management Comenius University 1 1 0 4 - -

20 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 8 0 5 - - 2,7

21 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 1 0 0 4 - - 22 Faculty of Education Comenius University 6 0 4 - - 2,1 23 Faculty of Law Comenius University 5 - - - - 1,0 24 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 4 - - - - 0,8

25 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations

Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 1 - - - - 0,3

26 Faculty of Education University of Prešov - - - - - - 27 Faculty of Law University of Trnava - - - - - -

28 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University - - - - - -

29 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University - - - - - -

30 Faculty of Mass Media Communication

University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - - - -

31 Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications

University of Žilina - - - - - -

48

Table 12: Overview of the results in the Science and Research group (continued) TECH No. Faculty University VV1 VV2 VV2a VV3 VV3a Average

1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 100 100 100 100 100,0

2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak Technical University 27 25 90 22 26 38,0

3 Faculty of Industrial Technologies

Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 21 17 78 17 - 26,6

4 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 8 6 78 6 2 20,1 5 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 3 4 12 36 13 -

6 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 5 4 77 4 4 18,9

7

Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology

Technical University of Košice 8 4 55 4 5 15,3

8 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 10 4 41 5 - 12,0

9 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 4 2 51 1 - 11,5

10 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 2 1 26 0 - 5,7

11 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 4 1 23 0 - 5,5

12 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 3 1 24 0 - 5,5

13 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 2 0 19 0 - 4,5

14 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 4 1 17 0 - 4,4

15 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 3 0 15 - - 3,5

16 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 1 0 12 - - 2,7

17 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 2 0 10 - - 2,3

18 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical university in Zvolen 2 0 7 - - 1,8

19 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 0 0 5 - - 1,1 20 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 1 - - - - 0,1

21 Faculty of Special Technologies

Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín - - - - - -

22 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina - - - - - -

49

6.1.2 “PhD Studies” Group

VV4 The number of PhD students in full time study in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors As a rule only a few associate professor and professors supervise PhD students (and a small number of holders of scientific degree IIa and I, about whom there is no information in the public domain). This indicator shows the proportion of the faculty’s (university’s) supervision capacity that is used.

The most successful faculties in the individual groups of faculties in this indicator are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: The number of PhD students in full time study in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors35

These numbers can also be compared with top foreign universities. Even if in comparison with 2004, the situation in 2005 improved (the table now features also faculties with generally good Slovak performance also in other indicators; the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences and the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology), the comments made in the 2005 report remain valid. In the cited article in THES it shows that Oxford University having a staff of around 3,000 has approximately 3,000 postgraduate students. At first glance, this would correspond to number 1 in Table 13 and would be the same as in our faculties. There are, however, a number of differences.

Oxford University is significantly more productive in scientific work than our faculties; the papers of its teachers and research workers are cited significantly more often and it is also much better financed. If the results of our faculties in indicator VV4 are compared and at the same time indicators VV1 – VV3a and indicators VV7 – VV8 are taken into consideration, it is clear that in several faculties with high numbers of PhD students, the publication success and the success in obtaining grants are relatively low.

The question then arises whether it is possible to provide quality education for PhD students in such a situation. The following graphs and Table 14 clearly show that there is practically no correlation between the quality of scientific performance in our universities and the number of PhD students36 again, similarly as in the last year, even if only full-time PhD students are taken into consideration37, which is quite an alarming finding. What is

35 In this and other tables we always indicate the best faculty from each of the six groups, unless stated otherwise. 36 Only full-time PhD students are included. 37 However, it should be noted that the correlation of the monitored indicators slightly improved after part-time PhD students were omitted from the comparison, particularly in the area of grant funds per creative worker.

more, the SR Ministry of Education allocates funds for paying PhD students to universities for this purpose. It is clear that this allocation is still not based on the scientific performance of the faculty.

The following graphs illustrate the low dependence of the parameters (the blue points represent faculties, the red line the dependence of parameters); the correlation coefficient is given in Table 14. (A perfect correlation has a correlation coefficient R equal to 1. The lower the value, the lower the correlation. If the value of R is lower than 0.8, it is statistically impossible to speak about a demonstrable correlation between variables.

Published papers and PhD students

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 2 4 6 8


PhD

stud

ents

/ (p

rof +

as

soci

ate

prof

.)

Citations and PhD students

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Citations per creative worker

PhD

stud

ents

/ (p

rof +

as

soci

ate

prof

.)

Grants and PhD students

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 50 100 150 200

Grants per creative worker (in SKK 000)

PhD

stud

ents

/ (p

rof +

as

soci

ate

prof

.)

Table 14: Correlation coefficient (R) for the number of PhD students in full time study per professor and the data from the previous graphs

Chart “Publications

and PhD students”

Chart “Citations and PhD students”

Chart “Grants and

PhD students”

Correlation coefficient 0,30 0,26 0,42

Faculty The number of PhD students

in full time study/(number of prof.+assoc.prof.)

Faculty of International Relations EU Faculty of Theology TvU Faculty of Natural Sciences UK Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK

SOC HUM NAT AGRO TECH MED

1,75 1,54 1,71 2,62

2,09

1,10

50

Similarly poor, yet somewhat better, is the correlation between i) faculties’ performance in science and the ability to obtain grants and ii) the proportion of professors and associate professors or teaching staff with PhD in the total number of the teaching staff. This finding is interesting also with respect to the fact that it is mostly the professors, associate professors and teachers with PhD who are responsible for these activities.

Table 15: Correlation coefficient of the proportion of professors and associate professors and data on scientific production and grants Publ/TP Cit/TP Grants/TP Correlation coefficient 0,38 0,34 0,43

Table 16: Correlation coefficient of the proportion of teachers with PhD and data on scientific production and grants

The ratio of the number of full time PhD students to the number of professors and associate professors reflects not only the efforts of the faculty to provide itself with a young, successor generation, but also the “utilisation” of supervisors. It may be noticed that the average values cover the fact that there are professors and associate professors that supervise a number of PhD students and also some who supervise no one. It should be the task and power of the faculty to analyse and address issues relating to its own human resources. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed substantially compared to 2004. Moreover, 14 faculties do not have a single full-time PhD student (in 2004, there were 19 such faculties), even if each higher education institution in Slovakia declares the ambition of being included among research institutions.

The number of full time PhD students in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors in 2005

VV4

MED faculty group

Number of full-time PhD students per professor and associate professor

1,1

0,80,8

0,5

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

Jess

enLe

kU

K

Lek

UPJ

Š

Lek

UK

Farm

UK

2005

2006

Publ/TP Cit/TP Grants/TP Correlation coefficient 0,42 0,33 0,52

51

NAT faculty group


1,81,6

1,5 1,5

1,1 1,1

0,8

0,3

0,00

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2Pr

ír U

K

Prír

UKF

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA FM

FI U

K

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UM

B

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


1,7

1,41,3

1,21,0

0,9

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

Záhr

ad S

PU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Les

TUZV

Agro

SPU

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

2005

2006

52

TECH faculty group


0,0

0,5

0,7

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,8

1,0

1,0

1,1

1,1

1,1

1,1

1,1

1,1

1,2

1,2

1,2

1,3

1,3

1,5

1,5

0 0,5 1 1,5 2

MechTron TUAD

ŠpecTechn TUAD

MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE

VýrTech TUKE

Mech SPU

ŠpecInž ŽU

Elektr TUKE

Stav ŽU

Archit STUBA

Elektr ŽU

Elektr STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Stav STUBA

Stroj TUKE

EnvirTech. TUZV

Ban TUKE

Riadenia ŽU

Hutn TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Stroj ŽU

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

53

HUM faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,3

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,7

0,8

0,8

0,9

0,9

0,9

1,0

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,5

1,6

2,1

0,0

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

DramUm AU

Fil UCM

Filolo UMB

MuzUm AU

Umení TUKE

VýtvarUm AU

Greckokat.PU

Evanj UK

RímsKat UK

HumPrír PU

Fil UK

VŠVU BL

Teol KU

Divadelná VŠMU

Fil KU

Fil UKF

Hum UMB

Fil PU

HudTan VŠMU

Fil TVU

FilmTel VŠMU

Pravosl.PU

Teol.TVU

2006

2005

54

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,3

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,6

0,6

0,7

0,7

0,7

0,7

0,8

0,8

0,9

0,9

0,9

0,9

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,1

1,2

1,4

1,7

2,6

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Manažment PU

MasMed UCM

SocEkon TUAD

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

VerSpr UPJŠ

Zdravotníctva PU

Práv UPJŠ

Polit UMB

NárHosp. EU BA

SocEkon UK

Práv UMB

Pedag TVU

PodnMan EU BA

HospInfo EU BA

Soc UKF

Pedag UMB

Práv UK

Pedag KU

Ekonom UMB

PodnHosp. EU BA

Športu PU

Ekonom TUKE

Manag UK

Obchod EU BA

Práv TVU

Pedag UK

ZdravSoc TVU

Pedag UKF

EkonomManSPU

Pedas ŽU

Pedag PU

TV UK

Eur.Št. SPU

MedzVzťah EU BA

2006

2005

55

VV5 Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2003 – 2005 in proportion to the number of associate professors and professors One of the problems of PhD study in Slovakia is the relatively low numbers who have completed it. ARRA’s

analysis shows that the success rate in PhD studies in our faculties is around 30%. By including indicator VV5, ARRA hopes to add to the analysis not only the number of PhD students but in a certain sense, also to include the success of PhD studies. PhD study graduates are included regardless of the form of the PhD study.

Table 17: Average annual number of PhD graduates for 2003 – 2005 per professor or associate professor

Faculty Average annual No. of PhD graduates per professor or

associate professor Orthodox Theological Faculty PU Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences TU Zvolen Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology TU Košice Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK

HUM NAT TECHAGRO SOC MED

0,57 0,39 0,48 0,59 0,39 0,37

The average number of PhD graduates in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors in 2003 – 2005

VV5

MED faculty group

Average number of PhD graduates

0,4

0,30,3

0,2

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Farm

UK

2005

2006

56

NAT faculty group


0,39 0,370,35

0,23 0,22 0,21

0,09

0,000

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UKF

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

FMFI

UK

Prír

UM

B

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UC

M

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


0,6

0,4

0,2 0,2 0,2

0,00

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

Záhr

ad S

PU

Agro

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Les

TUZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

2005

2006

57

TECH faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,04

0,10

0,10

0,12

0,13

0,15

0,15

0,16

0,18

0,20

0,21

0,21

0,21

0,21

0,21

0,28

0,32

0,37

0,48

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5

MechTron TUAD

PriemTech TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Stav ŽU

Elektr ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

VýrTech TUKE

Stav STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Mech SPU

Stav TUKE

EnvirTech. TUZV

Archit STUBA

Riadenia ŽU

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

Elektr TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Hutn TUKE

Stroj ŽU

Ban TUKE

2006

2005

58

HUM faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,04

0,05

0,09

0,13

0,14

0,14

0,19

0,23

0,39

0,45

0,55

0,56

0,57

0,00

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

DramUm AU

Filologická UMB

Filozofická KU

Filozofická UCM

Greckokat.PU

MuzUm AU

Teol.TVU

Umení TUKE

VýtvarUm AU

Teol KU

VŠVU BL

HumPrír PU

Divadelná VŠMU

Filozofická UKF

Hum.vied UMB

Filozofická TVU

HudTan VŠMU

Filozofická PU

FilmTel VŠMU

Filozofická UK

RímsKat UK

Evanj UK

Pravosl.PU

2006

2005

59

SOC faculty group


0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,02

0,03

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,05

0,05

0,06

0,06

0,06

0,06

0,08

0,09

0,10

0,10

0,11

0,11

0,12

0,12

0,13

0,15

0,31

0,00

0,00

0,00

0 0,5 1 1,5 2

Ekonom TUKE

Eur.Št. SPU

MasMed UCM

Pedag KU

Soc UKF

SocEkon TUAD

SocEkon UK

VerSpr UPJŠ

Zdravotníctva PU

Práv UMB

Práv UPJŠ

Pedag TVU

Pedag UMB

Pedag PU

Práv UK

Práv TVU

Ekonom UMB

Polit UMB

Pedag UKF

PodnMan EU BA

HospInfo EU BA

PodnHosp. EU BA

EkonomManSPU

NárHosp. EU BA

Pedag UK

Obchod EU BA

TV UK

Manag UK

Pedas ŽU

MedzVzťah EU BA

ZdravSoc TVU

Manažment PU

Stred.Eur.Št.UKF

Športu PU

2006

2005

60

VV6 The number of PhD students in full time study in proportion to the total number of students studying full-time in 2005 Typical foreign research universities have a relatively high number of PhD students in proportion to the total number of their students. This ratio may in fact provide an image of a certain scientific level in the relevant faculty, which is the parameter monitored by indicator VV6.

ARRA’s analysis shows that PhD students make up more than 10 percent of the total number of students in

only three faculties: The TvU Faculty of Theology (13.3%), the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology (11.9%) and the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work (10.6%). 18 faculties out of 100 under assessment had a value of zero for this parameter. Compared to last year, certain changes occurred; in two faculties (the UK Faculty of Pharmacy and the SPU Faculty of Biotechnological and Food Sciences – even if generally small figures are involved), the proportion of PhD students tripled. On the contrary, at the UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine, it fell to one third.

Table 18: Proportion of PhD students of all students (in full-time study)

Faculty Full-time PhD students / all

full-time students (%)

Faculty of Theology TvU Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA University of Veterinary Medicine Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK

HUM NAT TECHAGRO SOC MED

13,3 8,4 11,9 6,7 10,6 5,0

The number of PhD students in proportion to the number of all students (full-time)

VV6

MED faculty group

The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full-time students

5,0%

4,3%

2,9%

1,8%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Farm

UK

2005

2006

61

NAT faculty group


8,4%

7,5%

4,9%

2,9%2,5%

2,0% 1,9%

0,7%0,0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%FM

FI U

K

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UKF

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Prír

UM

B

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


6,7%

5,6% 5,3%

4,3%

3,3% 3,3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Les

TUZV

Dre

v TU

ZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Agro

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

2005

2006

62

TECH faculty group


0,0%

1,6%

1,7%

1,8%

2,0%

2,3%

2,5%

2,7%

2,8%

2,9%

3,0%

3,2%

3,3%

3,6%

3,7%

3,8%

3,8%

4,3%

4,8%

5,8%

6,6%

11,9%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

MechTron TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

Riadenia ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE

Ban TUKE

Mech SPU

Elektr TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Elektr ŽU

Stav STUBA

Archit STUBA

Stav ŽU

EnvirTech. TUZV

Stroj STUBA

Elektr STUBA

Stroj ŽU

PriemTech TUAD

Hutn TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

63

HUM faculty group

The proportion of PhD students in the total number of full time students

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,6%

1,1%

1,2%

1,5%

1,6%

1,6%

1,7%

2,2%

2,4%

2,7%

3,4%

3,6%

5,1%

7,8%

9,3%

9,7%

12,4%

0,0%

0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0%

DramUm AU

Fil UCM

Filolo UMB

MuzUm AU

Umení TUKE

VýtvarUm AU

Greckokat.PU

Fil KU

HumPrír PU

Evanj UK

Hum UMB

Fil UKF

Teol KU

Fil PU

Fil UK

RímsKat UK

Fil TVU

Pravosl.PU

VŠVU BL

Divadelná VŠMU

HudTan VŠMU

FilmTel VŠMU

Teol.TVU

2006

2005

64

SOC faculty group


0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,6%

0,9%

1,1%

1,1%

1,1%

1,2%

1,2%

1,2%

1,2%

1,3%

1,3%

1,3%

1,4%

1,5%

1,6%

1,6%

1,7%

1,7%

1,7%

2,2%

2,4%

2,4%

2,6%

2,6%

2,8%

3,1%

3,3%

10,6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Manažment PU

MasMed UCM

SocEkon TUAD

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

VerSpr UPJŠ

Zdravotníctva KU

Zdravotníctva PU

Práv UPJŠ

Práv UMB

SocEkon UK

NárHosp. EU BA

PodnMan EU BA

Soc UKF

HospInfo EU BA

Ekonom UMB

Ekonom TUKE

Polit UMB

Pedag KU

PodnHosp. EU BA

Práv UK

Pedag PU

Obchod EU BA

Manag UK

Pedag TVU

Pedag UK

Pedag UKF

Pedas ŽU

Práv TVU

Pedag UMB

EkonomManSPU

Eur.Št. SPU

Športu PU

TV UK

MedzVzťah EU BA

ZdravSoc TVU

2006

2005

65

Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group AGRO

No. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average

1 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering

Slovak University of Agriculture 100 100 49 83,0

2 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology

Technical university in Zvolen 78 36 79 64,6

3 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 51 33 100 61,1

4 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 68 32 83 60,9

5 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources


6 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences

Slovak University of Agriculture 83 - 64 48,9

HUM

No. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 73 67 67 69,2 2 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 74 100 27 67,1 3 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 100 - 100 66,7 4 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 56 33 80 56,5


Comenius University 19 96 21 45,1

6 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 34 78 18 43,4 7 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 16 97 12 41,6 8 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 48 16 60 41,6 9 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 65 25 26 38,5 10 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 49 40 17 35,3 11 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 36 7 44 28,7 12 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 48 24 12 28,0 13 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 44 23 12 26,4 14 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 44 - 8 17,4

15 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences

University of Prešov 24 8 9 13,7

16 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty

University of Prešov 15 - 4 6 ,5

17 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - - - 18 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts - - - - 19 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts - - - - 20 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice - - - - 21 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University - - - - 22 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - -

MED No. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 100 100 100,0 2 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 69 77 85 77,1 3 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 74 70 57 67,4 4 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 50 52 36 45,9

NAT

No. Faculty University VV4 VV5 VV6 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 100 92 89 93,7

2 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics


3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 93 97 30 73,4

4 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences

Technical university in Zvolen 62 100 35 65,7

5 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 61 60 58 59,6 6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 46 53 23 40,5 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 18 24 8 16,7 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - -

66

Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group (continued) SOC


1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work

University of Trnava 37 100 100 78,9

2 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 100 48 31 59,8

3 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports



University of Žilina 41 43 21 34,9

5 Faculty of Economics and Management


6 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development

Slovak University of Agriculture 64 - 25 29,5

7 Faculty of Management Comenius University 33 39 15 29,1 8 Faculty of Education Comenius University 36 34 16 28,7 9 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 33 35 15 27,8 10 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 47 16 14 25,7 11 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 38 20 16 25,0 12 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 35 17 23 25,0 13 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 28 30 12 23,4 14 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 24 14 23 20,2 15 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 22 27 11 20,1 16 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 15 33 10 19,8 17 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 28 20 12 19,6 18 Faculty of Law Comenius University 27 16 14 19,0 19 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 18 20 11 16,4

20 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations

Matej Bel University 15 20 12 15,5

21 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 32 - 12 14,5 22 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 17 10 16 14,3 23 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 27 - 12 13,2


Constantine the Philosopher University 23 - 11 11,3

25 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 17 6 9 10,4 26 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 11 10 5 8 ,6

27 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences

Comenius University 16 - 10 8 ,6

28 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov - - - -


Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín - - - -

30 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University - - - -


University of St. Cyril and Methodius - - - -

67

Table 19: Overview of the results in the PhD Studies group (continued) TECH


1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 45 100 81,7

2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 97 77 40 71,5 3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 84 66 55 68,7

4 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology

Technical University of Košice 78 100 23 66,8

5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 74 59 25 52,8

6 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak Technical University 71 45 36 50,6

7 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical university in Zvolen 76 41 32 49,5

8 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 70 44 30 48,3

9 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 79 44 14 45,9

10 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 89 - 49 45,8 11 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 70 31 32 44,2

12 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 63 45 24 44,1

13 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 74 31 27 44,0 14 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 71 21 31 41,0 15 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 69 22 27 39,0

16 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 51 34 24 36,2

17 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 49 37 21 35,8

18 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 47 26 19 30,5

19 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 51 27 13 30,5

20 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 52 - 17 23,0 21 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 33 9 15 19,3 22 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín - - - -

68

6.1.3 “Grant Success” Group

VV7 Combined grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per one creative worker The VEGA (Scientific Grant Agency) and KEGA (Cultural and Educational Grant Agency) agencies have a long tradition in the SR and are open to all faculties and universities (and only to them, excluding other scientific institutions) although the grant level mostly varies from group to group. Within a given group, however, faculties have approximately equal opportunities to win grants. For this reason, ARRA combined VEGA and KEGA funding into one indicator. It is noteworthy that the most successful HUM and SOC faculties score better than average successful faculties and compete with the most successful faculties in other groups. It can be expected that this fact should gradually be reflected in the amount and quality of scientific production of these faculties (criteria VV1 – VV3a).

Three faculties of the HUM group (the KU Faculty of Theology, the TvU Faculty of Theology, the TU Košice Faculty of Arts), which obtained no grant funds from KEGA or VEGA in 2004, obtained funds from this source in 2005, the TU Košice Faculty of Arts even being the first with SKK 47,500 per creative worker. In the NAT group, the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences nearly tripled the receipts from this source, while the UCM Faculty of Natural Sciences obtained twice as much as in 2004. The SPU Faculty of Biotechnological and Food Sciences of the AGRO group increased the funds from these sources as many as five times. In the SOC group, except for the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work, the UK Faculty of Management, the PU Faculty of Education (even an obvious decrease), the UMB Faculty of Law, the UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences (small improvement), all faculties obtained significantly more funds than in 2004 with the UCM Faculty of Mass Media Communication having obtained 8 times more and the UMB Faculty of International Relations 9 times more. Two faculties (the PU Faculty of Management and the UMB Faculty of Political Sciences), which obtained no grant funds from KEGA or VEGA in 2004, did obtain funds from this source in 2005.

Table 20: Combined grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 in SKK 000

Faculty

Funding per creative worker (in SKK 000)

Faculty of Arts TU Košice Faculty of Natural Sciences UK Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen Faculty of Physical Education and Sports UK Faculty of Pharmacy UK

HUM NAT TECH AGRO SOC MED

47,5 74,8 69,3 92,4 33,0 56,1

Grant funding from KEGA and VEGA per creative worker (in SKK 000)

VV7

MED faculty group

VEGA and KEGA grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker

56,1

30,7

21,017,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Farm

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

69

NAT faculty group


74,8

65,0

52,347,5

41,334,7

20,3

9,95,9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Pr

ír U

K

Prír

UPJ

Š

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA FM

FI U

K

Prír

UKF

EKO

LEN

V TU

Z

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UC

M

Prír

ŽU

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


92,4 89,5 87,678,7

50,845,7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Les

TUZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Agro

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

2005

2006

70

TECH faculty group


4,3

12,5

13,6

14,1

17,8

21,7

22,2

24,3

25,2

26,2

26,3

37,9

41,1

45,4

45,6

46,4

49,2

49,2

54,5

59,6

61,4

66,4

69,3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Letecká TUKE

Elektr ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

MechTron TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

Archit STUBA

Riadenia ŽU

Mech SPU

PriemTech TUAD

MatTechn STUBA

Stav ŽU

Ban TUKE

Elektr TUKE

Stav STUBA

Stroj STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZV

Stroj ŽU

Stav TUKE

Hutn TUKE

VýrTech TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

71

HUM faculty group


0,0

0,6

2,0

3,0

3,7

3,9

4,8

6,3

7,1

7,8

8,6

9,6

12,9

14,0

14,6

17,2

20,7

22,2

22,3

30,7

38,7

47,5

0,0

0 10 20 30 40 50

DramUm AU

VýtvarUm AU

Teol KU

RímsKat UK

Evanj UK

Filolo UMB

HudTan VŠMU

Fil KU

Fil UCM

Hum UMB

Fil UKF

MuzUm AU

Greckokat.PU

VŠVU BL

Pravosl.PU

Fil UK

Teol.TVU

Divadelná VŠMU

FilmTel VŠMU

Fil TVU

HumPrír PU

Fil PU

Umení TUKE

2006

2005

72

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,9

1,0

1,7

1,9

2,2

4,5

6,2

6,5

7,6

7,7

7,8

7,8

10,4

10,5

10,6

11,9

13,6

16,0

16,5

16,5

18,0

18,3

21,4

22,5

23,2

24,6

24,7

25,4

29,1

32,4

33,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Eur.Št. SPU

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Zdravotníctva PU

ZdravSoc TVU

Manag UK

Práv UMB

Polit UMB

Pedag UMB

Soc UKF

Práv UPJŠ

MasMed UCM

HospInfo EU BA

PodnHosp. EU BA

Práv UK

Pedag PU

Pedag KU

Pedas ŽU

Manažment PU

PodnMan EU BA

SocEkon UK

NárHosp. EU BA

Ekonom UMB

Obchod EU BA

EkonomManSPU

MedzVzťah EU BA

Pedag UK

VerSpr UPJŠ

Pedag UKF

SocEkon TUAD

Ekonom TUKE

Práv TVU

Pedag TVU

Športu PU

TV UK

2006

2005

73

VV8 Funding from AR (applied research) ISTC (international scientific and technical cooperation) and APVV (Slovak Research and Development Agency) grants per creative worker

In 2005, it was mainly faculties oriented towards technology, natural history and medicine that drew funding from AR and APVV. Among faculties of medicine, the performance was considerably irregular – the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine obtained multiples of funding

per creative worker compared to other three faculties in the MED group. Within individual groups of faculties, the faculties had approximately equal chances of obtaining funding from the stated sources, as in the previous examples. It can be concluded in general that in free competition, the most successful faculties obtained substantially more funds than in 2004. The reason probably is that APVV distributed more funds in 2005 than in 2004 but also that more projects were included in the competition.

Table 21: Combined grant funding from the VEGA and KEGA agencies per creative worker in 2005 in SKK 000

Faculty


Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences UMB Faculty of Natural Sciences UK Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics STUBA Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU Faculty of Education PU Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK


12,9 89,5 115,3 91,7 13,8 33,9

Grant funding from AR (applied research), ISTC (international scientific and technical cooperation) and APVV (Slovak Research and Development Agency) (in SKK 000) per creative worker

VV8

MED faculty group

APVV, ISTC, and AR grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker

33,9

8,06,5 5,2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Lek

UK

2005

2006

74

NAT faculty group


89,5

77,9

68,0

41,0

5,4 3,3 0,0 0,0 0,00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Pr

ír U

K

Info

r.STU

BA

FMFI

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UKF

Prír

UM

B

Prír

ŽU

EKO

LEN

VTU

Z

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


91,7

76,1

49,6

33,7

3,0 1,80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Agro

SPU

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

Les

TUZV

2005

2006

75

TECH faculty group


0,0

0,8

1,1

3,3

8,7

11,6

14,1

16,7

16,8

18,0

18,7

28,4

28,5

33,4

34,2

41,2

43,0

51,3

54,1

79,4

86,3

89,0

115,3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Letecká TUKE

Mech SPU

Stav TUKE

MechTron TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

Archit STUBA

Stroj TUKE

Elektr TUKE

Riadenia ŽU

Stav ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Elektr ŽU

Ban TUKE

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

EnvirTech. TUZV

Stroj STUBA

ŠpecTechn TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Stroj ŽU

ChemTechn. STUBA

Elektr STUBA

2006

2005

76

HUM faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,5

1,2

7,8

8,2

12,9

0,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Divadelna VŠMU

DramUm AU

Evanj UK

Fil KU

Fil PU

Fil TVU

Fil UKF

FilmTel VŠMU

Filolo UMB

Greckokat.PU

HudTan VŠMU

Pravosl.PU

RímsKat UK

Teol KU

Teol TVU

Umení TUKE

VŠVU BL

VýtvarUm AU

Fil UK

Fil UCM

Hum UMB

MuzUm AU

HumPrír PU

2006

2005

77

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,3

2,0

2,4

3,4

6,6

9,9

12,2

13,8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Ekonom UMB

HospInfo EU BA

Manag PU

Manag UK

MasMed UCM

MedzVzťah EU BA

NárHosp. EU BA

Obchod EU BA

Pedag KU

Pedag UKF

Pedag UMB

PodnHosp. EU BA

PodnMan EU BA

Polit UMB

Práv TVU

Práv UK

Práv UMB

Práv UPJŠ

SocEkon TUAD

SocEkon UK

StredEur UKF

Športu PU

TV UK

Zdravotníctva PU

VerSpr UPJŠ

ZdravSoc TVU

Pedag TVU

EkonomManSPU

Pedas ŽU

Pedag UK

Eur.št.SPU

Ekonom TUKE

Soc UKF

Pedag PU

2006

2005

78

VV9 Funding from state programmes and foreign grants For the purposes of this assessment, foreign funds and state programmes are evaluated separately. This often involves significant amounts assigned according to special criteria.

These funds – unlike with the grant schemes of criteria VV7 and VV8 – are not available equally to all faculties; their purpose may be other than research or education. However, they indicate the ability of the faculty to use all available resources for its development. When comparing the performance in this indicator and in indicator VV8 (ability to obtain funding from AR, ISTC, and APVV grants), the greater difference in faculties’ overall performance can be seen in the HUM and SOC groups. In VV8 in general, the HUM and SOC faculties were significantly less successful than in obtaining state programmes and foreign grants. This is true of the volume of funds obtained as well as of the number of faculties successful in obtaining such funding. While in VV8, as many as 18 HUM and 26 SOC faculties failed to obtain any funding at all, in VV9, there were only 6 faculties in the HUM group and 10 faculties in the SOC group that were completely unsuccessful. The amount of funds within VV9 obtained by the first ranked TU Košice Faculty of Arts (SKK 547,500 per creative worker) is several times higher than funding obtained by the faculty ranking first in indicator VV8 (the PU Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences) Even the 11th ranked “faculty” in VV9 (the Bratislava Academy of Fine Arts) obtained more funds (SKK 14,800

per creative worker) than the PU Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, which was the best in VV8.

In the SOC group, the situation is similar with the best faculty in VV9 (the SPU Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development) having obtained SKK 254,500 per creative worker and the first one in VV8 (the PU Faculty of Education) having obtained only SKK 13,800 per creative worker – this is a similar amount as that obtained by the EU Faculty of Economic Informatics being the seventeenth in VV9 ranking. At the same time, indicator VV9 is the only one where HUM and SOC faculties are significantly the best compared to the performance of faculties in other groups. What is also interesting is that the faculties that are most successful in VV8 are not the best also in VV9 except for two faculties in each group (in HUM, the AU Faculty of Music and the UMB Faculty of Humanities, in the SOC group, the TU Košice Faculty of Economics and the SPU Faculty of European Studies).

It can be assumed that the difference in performance between both indicators (VV8 and VV9) may be caused by the fact that the conditions for obtaining funds are, in the case of VV8, based on free competition, while in VV9, the funds are not available equally to all faculties. The difference in the amounts of funds obtained in VV8 and VV9 is caused by the availability of the funds.

The “Funding from state programmes and foreign grants” criterion has been used this year for the first time, as the relevant data was not available in the last year.

Table 22: Grant funding from state programmes and foreign grants per creative worker in 2005 in SKK 000

Faculty


Faculty of Arts TU Košice Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK Faculty of Architecture STUBA Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences SPU Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development SPU Faculty of Pharmacy UK


547,5 134,2 318,4 102,4 254,5 15,4

79

Combined grant funding from state programmes and foreign grants per creative worker in 2005

(in SKK 000)

VV9

MED faculty group

Aggregate funding from state programmes and foreign grants (in SKK 000) per creative worker

15,4

11,5

3,01,3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Farm

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2006

NAT faculty group


196,1

134,2

72,2

36,2 28,3 16,5 12,6 7,6 0,00

50

100

150

200

250

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UKF

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UC

M

Prír

UM

B

Ekol

env

TUZ

2006

80

AGRO faculty group


102,4

46,9

24,014,5

10,02,3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Agro

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

Les

TUZV

Dre

v TU

ZV

2006

TECH faculty group


0,0

0,6

8,0

9,7

12,1

13,7

16,6

28,7

36,7

37,3

37,7

37,9

41,8

46,6

46,8

49,1

52,2

52,3

67,1

84,6

104,6

227,6

318,4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Letecká TUKE

ŠpecInž ŽU

EnvirTech. TUZV

MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE

MechTron TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

Ban TUKE

Stav STUBA

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Elektr ŽU

Stav ŽU

Stroj STUBA

Mech SPU

Elektr TUKE

Hutn TUKE

RiadInf ŽU

Stroj ŽU

Stroj TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

Archit STUBA

2006

81

HUM faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,4

3,2

4,1

4,7

5,7

9,3

14,8

15,1

15,5

16,4

29,9

61,9

75,5

99,3

123,3

387,1

547,5

0,0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Teol KU

RímsKat UK

Pravosl.PU

Fil TVU

Evanj UK

Divadelná VŠMU

Filolo UMB

DramUm AU

HumPrír PU

Fil PU

VýtvarUm AU

HudTan VŠMU

VŠVU BL

Fil UCM

Fil UK

Teol.TVU

Fil UKF

FilmTel VŠMU

Hum UMB

MuzUm AU

Greckokat.PU

Fil KU

Umení TUKE

2006

82

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

1,9

2,6

3,0

3,3

3,6

4,9

8,4

13,3

18,4

18,7

21,9

28,9

28,9

30,7

32,0

42,0

43,7

54,0

72,9

73,1

86,5

190,5

235,7

254,5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

VerSpr UPJŠ

Športu PU

Práv UPJŠ

Práv UMB

Práv TVU

Polit UMB

PodnHosp. EU BA

Pedag PU

MasMed UCM

Manažment PU

TV UK

PodnMan EU BA

Pedag UMB

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Soc UKF

Pedas ŽU

NárHosp. EU BA

HospInfo EU BA

Pedag KU

Pedag UKF

Pedag UK

Obchod EU BA

MedzVzťah EU BA

EkonomManSPU

Zdravotníctva PU

Manag UK

Pedag TVU

ZdravSoc TVU

SocEkon TUAD

Práv UK

SocEkon UK

Ekonom UMB

Ekonom TUKE

Eur.Št. SPU

2006

83

VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per

creative worker38

This indicator is based on the total of all grant funding from public sources that is allocated by an independent expert commission. Thus, this includes all grant funds from criteria VV7 and VV8, however, excluding those evaluated in criterion VV9 or other higher education institutions’ resources other than subsidies. In ARRA’s opinion, VV10 has a special informative value – it reflects the measure of faculties’ ability to obtain funding for their main activities using their own efforts in competition with the others.

In the HUM group of faculties, the TU Košice Faculty of Arts got the greatest amount of funding per CW, amounting in total to SKK 47,500. Two faculties out of 23 did not gain any funding in this “competition” (there were 4 such faculties last year). In the SOC group, at the TU Košice Faculty of Economics, one CW was able to gain on average SKK 34,500. Once again two faculties (from 36; four last year) did not obtain any funding for their research. In the NAT group, like in the last year, the most successful faculty was the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences with an average of SKK 154,300 per CW, while at the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences 1 CW earned on average SKK 5,900.

Table 23: Overall grant funding from agencies per creative worker in 2005 in SKK 000

38 Indicated as VV9 in the last year’s assessment.

In the TECH group, the best performer was the STU Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology with SKK 181,700 per CW, which is the highest amount of funds among all faculties, while the TUAD Faculty of Mechatronics came at the bottom of the table with SKK 17,500. In the AGRO group, a CW at the SPU Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources was able to obtain SKK 170,400. The TU Zvolen Faculty of Wood Sciences came last with SKK 84,500 per CW. In the MED group, the most successful faculty was the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (like in the last year), where on average each CW had SKK 64,600, while one CW of the UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine had on average SKK 23,900 from the stated funding. It is interesting that 4 faculties out of 100 were unable to gain a single koruna of public funding for their research or development or artistic projects (even if this is half of the last year’s figure).

Faculty


Faculty of Arts TU Košice Faculty of Natural Sciences UK Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics STUBA Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU Faculty of Economics TU Košice Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK


47,5 164,3 181,7 170,4 34,5 64,6

84

Overall funding from agency grants per creative worker in 2005 (in SKK 000)

VV10

MED faculty group

Agency grant funding (in SKK 000) per creative worker

64,6 64,1

26,2 23,9

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0Je

ssen

Lek

UK

Farm

UK

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


164,3

130,2115,5

105,9

46,734,7

23,69,9 5,9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Prír

UK

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA FM

FI U

K

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UKF

Ekol

env

TUZv

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UC

M

Prír

ŽU

2005

2006

85

AGRO faculty group


170,4163,7

95,3 94,2 92,584,5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Agro

SPU

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Les

TUZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

Dre

v TU

ZV

2005

2006

86

TECH faculty group


17,5

25,1

26,6

33,3

39,0

40,9

44,2

44,8

50,4

57,8

64,9

66,4

75,5

78,8

87,6

88,6

88,8

104,6

113,7

135,5

158,4

181,7

0 50 100 150 200

MechTron TUAD

Mech SPU

ŠpecInž ŽU

Archit STUBA

Riadenia ŽU

Elektr ŽU

Stav ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Stav TUKE

Elektr TUKE

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Ban TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Stav STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZV

Stroj STUBA

Hutn TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

Stroj ŽU

ChemTechn. STUBA

Elektr STUBA

2006

2005

87

HUM faculty group


0,0

0,6

2,0

3,0

3,7

4,8

6,7

7,5

7,8

9,6

12,9

14,0

14,9

15,1

16,8

17,2

20,7

22,2

22,3

38,7

43,6

47,5

0,0

0 10 20 30 40 50

DramUm AU

VýtvarUm AU

Teol KU

RímsKat UK

Evanj UK

Filolo UMB

Fil KU

HudTan VŠMU

Fil UCM

Fil UKF

Greckokat.PU

VŠVU BL

Pravosl.PU

Hum UMB

Fil UK

MuzUm AU

Teol.TVU

Divadelná VŠMU

FilmTel VŠMU

Fil TVU

Fil PU

HumPrír PU

Umení TUKE

2006

2005

88

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,0

0,9

1,0

1,7

1,9

2,2

6,2

6,5

6,6

7,6

7,7

7,8

10,4

10,6

11,9

12,9

13,6

16,0

16,5

16,5

16,7

18,3

20,0

21,6

22,5

23,2

24,6

24,8

25,4

29,4

32,4

33,0

34,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Zdravotníctva PU

ZdravSoc TVU

Manag UK

Práv UMB

Polit UMB

Pedag UMB

Práv UPJŠ

MasMed UCM

Eur.Št. SPU

HospInfo EU BA

PodnHosp. EU BA

Práv UK

Pedag KU

Manažment PU

PodnMan EU BA

Pedas ŽU

SocEkon UK

NárHosp. EU BA

Ekonom UMB

Obchod EU BA

Soc UKF

MedzVzťah EU BA

EkonomManSPU

Pedag PU

VerSpr UPJŠ

Pedag UKF

SocEkon TUAD

Pedag UK

Práv TVU

Pedag TVU

Športu PU

TV UK

Ekonom TUKE

2006

2005

89

Table 24: Overview of the results in the Grant Success group AGRO

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 95 83 46 100 80,9

2 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 85 100 23 100 77,1

3 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 49 54 100 58 65,4

4 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 97 3 14 57 42,7

5 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 100 2 10 58 42,3 6 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 55 37 2 52 36,4

HUM

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 100 - 100 100 75,0

2 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences

University of Prešov 65 100 1 92 64,3

3 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 82 - 1 82 41,0 4 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 18 63 18 35 33,8 5 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 15 61 14 31 30,2 6 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 47 - 11 47 26,2 7 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 47 - - 47 23,5 8 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 10 - 71 10 22,8 9 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 44 - - 44 21,8 10 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 36 - 3 36 18,8 11 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 31 4 3 32 17,2 12 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 20 - 23 20 15,8 13 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 29 - - 29 14,7 14 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 27 - 3 27 14,3 15 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 13 9 3 16 10,2

16 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 16 - 5 16 9,5

17 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 14 - 3 14 7,8 18 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 8 - 0 8 3,9 19 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 6 - - 6 3,1


Comenius University 4 - - 4 2,1

21 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts - - 1 - 0,3 22 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts - - 1 - 0,1

MED

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 55 100 75 100 82,4 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 100 24 100 99 80,7 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 37 15 20 41 28,2 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 31 19 8 37 23,9

NAT

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 100 100 54 100 88,5


Comenius University 63 76 100 70 77,4

3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 87 46 27 64 56,0

4 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 55 6 21 28 27,7


Technical university in Zvolen 46 - - 21 16,9

6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 27 4 6 14 12,7 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 13 - 9 6 7,2 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 8 - 12 4 5,9

90

Table 24: Overview of the results in the Grant Success group (continued) SOC

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 75 72 93 100 84,8 2 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 100 - 1 95 49,1 3 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 88 2 17 85 48,2 4 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 24 100 - 63 46,5

5 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 75 - 29 71 43,7

6 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 50 - 75 48 43,1 7 Faculty of Education Comenius University 65 25 9 72 42,5


Slovak University of Agriculture - 48 100 19 41,7

9 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher University 14 89 1 48 38,0

10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 77 - - 74 37,7

11 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 70 - 7 67 36,2

12 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 55 15 12 58 34,9 13 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 68 - - 65 33,3 14 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 55 - 11 53 29,9 15 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 41 - 34 39 28,7 16 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 50 - 11 48 27,3 17 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 49 - 3 46 24,6


University of Žilina 32 17 2 37 22,0

19 Faculty of Law Comenius University 24 - 29 23 18,7 20 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 36 - 1 34 17,8 21 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 31 - 7 30 17,2 22 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 23 - 5 22 12,5 23 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 23 - - 22 11,4 24 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 20 - - 19 9,6 25 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 19 - - 18 9,2 26 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 3 - 21 3 6,7 27 Faculty of Management Comenius University 3 - 16 3 5,6 28 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 7 - 1 6 3,5 29 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov - - 13 - 3,1


Matej Bel University 6 - - 6 2,9

31 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 5 - - 5 2,6

TECH

No. Faculty University VV7 VV8 VV9 VV10 Average 1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 77 71 87 84,0

2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak Technical University 96 100 33 100 82,2

3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 75 16 75 59,2 4 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 86 47 5 63 50,2

5 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 36 69 27 58 47,4

6 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 79 30 15 49 43,2 7 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 66 37 13 49 41,2 8 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 89 12 21 42 40,9 9 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 31 10 100 18 39,9

10 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical university in Zvolen 67 36 3 48 38,3

11 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 66 29 12 43 37,3

12 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology Technical University of Košice 55 25 9 37 31,2

13 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 59 14 15 32 30,1

14 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 20 45 12 36 27,9

15 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 71 1 4 28 25,9 16 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 38 16 12 24 22,4 17 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 32 15 16 21 21,1

18 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 38 16 3 25 20,4

19 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 18 25 12 23 19,3 20 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 35 1 15 14 16,1 21 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 26 8 0 15 12,0

22 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 20 3 4 10 9,3

91

6.2 Study and education

6.2.1 “Students and Teachers” Group

SV1 Number of students divided by the number of teachers ARRA believes that it is better for students if there is a smaller number of students per teacher. To a greater extent, this allows the teacher to offer a more individual approach to the student, which almost certainly helps to increase the quality of education and research activity in the institution. For this reason a higher number of points was given for a lower number of students per teacher. At the same time it is true to say that low numbers of students per teacher lead to problems in financing universities and faculties because a major part of funding is based on the number of students. ARRA, however, aims to look at universities through the eyes of students or prospective students for whom the quality that the school offers them is important. In discussion of the adequacy of these proportions the interests of students in higher education, the higher education institutions themselves, and the financing institutions are therefore in conflict.

Table 25: Number of students per teacher

Higher numbers of students per teacher are to be found in SOC and HUM faculties, which relates to the fact that these faculties have as a rule a higher number of part-time students. A relatively large increase of the

number of part-time students occurred also in the TECH and NAT groups, which had traditionally lower numbers of students per teacher.

As it has been already mentioned, the number of students per teacher reflects the level the tutor’s individual approach to students. It is also possible to speak of the technical requirements of tuition (e.g. laboratories, studios, sports facilities, clinics), or, as the case may be, of a lower interest in the given faculty among applicants (and possibly related over-employment of teachers in the faculty resulting therefrom) or a lack of teachers. It is no surprise that the lowest ratios are to be found in faculties oriented towards art, sport or medicine. However, questions may arise in the cases where faculties with identical or similar orientation show significant differences. A point worth noting is the role played in this indicator by part time students. Sometimes the number of part time students is greater than the number of full time students. For example, in the case of the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work the proportion (part time/full time) equals 4, which is by far the highest in the faculties of the Slovak universities. In 16 faculties out of 100 (in 2004, the figure was 15) there are more part time than full time students.

In the 2006 academic year, the percentage of part-time students was 33.2 of the total of 169,506 students of public higher education institutions. The year-on-year increase of part-time students (2004 – 2005) was

5,942; for full time study, this figure amounted to 7,003. From this it is clear that education in Slovak universities is gradually becoming more of a mass phenomenon also thanks to the part-time study. On the margin of this it should be emphasised that part time study in

Slovakia is not identical in character with distance learning, whose popularity is increasing in other countries.

Faculty

Number of full- and part-time students per teacher

Faculty of Performing Arts AU Banská Bystrica Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA University of Veterinary Medicine Faculty of Physical Education and Sports UK Faculty of Medicine UK


3,6 7,8 7,9 6,3 16,0 6,7

92

Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of teachers in 2005 SV1

MED faculty group


6,7

8,28,8

10,2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

kU

K

Lek

UP

JŠ

Farm

UK

20052006

NAT faculty group


7,810,2 11,1

13,4

16,218,7

21,3

26,1

28,8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

FMFI

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UK

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UC

M

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UKF

Prír

UM

B

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

20052006

93

AGRO faculty group


6,3

13,6

16,6 17,218,1

21,8

0

5

10

15

20

25Ve

terL

ek. U

VL

Les

TUZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Agro

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

20052006

94

TECH faculty group


31,5

25,7

23,6

20,9

19,0

18,0

17,7

16,5

16,5

15,2

14,7

14,6

14,5

14,4

14,3

14,1

13,7

12,7

11,5

11,4

10,7

10,3

7,9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

ŠpecInž ŽU

Ban TUKE

MechTron TUAD

VýrTech TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Mech SPU

MatTechn STUBA

Riadenia ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Elektr TUKE

EnvirTech. TUZV

Letecká TUKE

Elektr ŽU

PriemTech TUAD

Stav ŽU

Stroj ŽU

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

Elektr STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Archit STUBA

Stav TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

20062005

95

HUM faculty group


47,3

32,3

30,6

29,4

25,1

23,0

23,0

17,9

16,8

16,4

10,3

10,3

9,4

8,1

7,7

7,6

7,0

5,6

5,5

4,9

4,5

4,4

3,6

0 10 20 30 40 50

Teol KU

Greckokat.PU

Hum UMB

Pravosl.PU

Fil UKF

HumPrír PU

Fil KU

Fil UCM

Fil PU

Fil TVU

Fil UK

Teol.TVU

Filolo UMB

FilmTel VŠMU

Umení TUKE

Evanj UK

Divadelná VŠMU

RímsKat UK

VýtvarUm AU

VŠVU BL

HudTan VŠMU

DramUm AU

MuzUm AU

20062005

96

SOC faculty group


71,9

50,8

44,6

44,5

41,9

37,7

36,3

35,1

33,7

32,3

30,9

28,4

27,2

26,9

26,8

25,0

24,4

24,3

23,4

23,4

23,3

22,5

21,9

21,3

21,2

20,1

19,5

19,5

19,0

18,4

18,4

16,3

16,2

16,0

8,9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Zdravotníctva KU

SocEkon TUAD

Manag UK

Manažment PU

Eur.Št. SPU

Soc UKF

Pedag KU

Práv UK

MasMed UCM

Pedag UMB

Obchod EU BA

VerSpr UPJŠ

Pedag PU

Ekonom UMB

Pedag TVU

PodnHosp. EU BA

Práv UMB

Pedas ŽU

Práv UPJŠ

HospInfo EU BA

EkonomManSPU

NárHosp. EU BA

PodnMan EU BA

Ekonom TUKE

Pedag UKF

Pedag UK

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

MedzVzťah EU BA

SocEkon UK

ZdravSoc TVU

Práv TVU

Zdravotníctva PU

Polit UMB

TV UK

Športu PU

20062005

97

SV2 Number of students divided by the number of professors and associate professors

Values for selected faculties.

Table 26: Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of professors and associate professors in 2005

Faculty

Number of full- and part-time students per professor and associate

professor Faculty of Performing Arts AU Banská Bystrica Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics UK Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA University of Veterinary Medicine Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU Faculty of Medicine UK


8,6 16,6 13,6 13,5 40,5 19,9

ARRA’s analysis shows that the student-teacher ratio is significantly higher in faculties with a higher number of part time students. This parameter may be high due to two reasons. The institution may have more students in a certain field of study than other institutions of similar orientation, or the institution has fewer professors and associate processors than other institutions with similar orientation.

The ratio of students to professors and associate professors is important for the academic quality of subjects but also for the likelihood of individual contact between students and the faculty members with the highest qualifications. Once again it is possible to observe a similar trend to that observed in the case of the SV1 indicator, although in comparison with 2004, several dramatic changes occurred.

As many as four-fold increase occurred in the case of the KU Faculty of Theology, but it also increased at the

TvU Faculty of Philosophy (1.8 times) and the UMB Faculty of Humanities (1.6 times). Conversely, a moderate drop occurred in the TECH group. There were sharp increases of full-time students, e.g., at the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences (2.5 times) or at the UKF Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare with an over three-fold increase. Besides these extremes, however, only small changes occurred in general.

A record in absolute figures is held by the KU Faculty of Healthcare having 503 students per professor (associate professor). However, in this group of faculties, as many as 12 out of the total of 35 have more than 100 students per professor (associate professor).

In total, Slovak higher education institutions have 16 faculties with more than 100 students per professor (associate professor).

98

Number of students (full- and part-time) divided by the number of professors and associate professors in 2005

SV2

MED faculty group

Number of students per professor and associate professor

19,9

27,729,9

33,0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


16,6 21,1 25,536,0 37,7

68,374,6 76,6

107,8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FMFI

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UK

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UC

M

Prír

UKF

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h. S

TUBA

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UM

B

2006

2005

99

AGRO faculty group


13,5

24,2

39,1 41,744,9

69,5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90Ve

terL

ek. U

VL

Les

TUZV

Dre

v TU

ZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Agro

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

2006

2005

100

TECH faculty group


79,0

77,7

72,7

67,6

63,0

56,0

53,7

52,3

38,3

36,6

36,4

35,7

35,5

34,6

34,5

33,8

33,3

29,4

28,7

27,3

26,3

24,4

13,6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ŠpecInž ŽU

MechTron TUAD

Riadenia ŽU

Ban TUKE

VýrTech TUKE

MatTechn STUBA

Stroj TUKE

Letecká TUKE

Mech SPU

Stav ŽU

Elektr TUKE

Stav STUBA

Stroj ŽU

Elektr ŽU

ŠpecTechn TUAD

EnvirTech. TUZV

PriemTech TUAD

Stav TUKE

Archit STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Hutn TUKE

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

101

HUM faculty group


181,3

114,4

106,4

95,5

93,3

80,8

63,9

63,0

55,8

44,0

42,0

30,9

28,7

28,6

20,2

17,7

17,4

12,6

12,2

11,7

10,4

9,9

8,6

0 50 100 150 200

Teol KU

Hum UMB

Greckokat.PU

Fil UKF

Pravosl.PU

Fil KU

Fil UCM

HumPrír PU

Fil PU

Fil TVU

Filolo UMB

RímsKat UK

Fil UK

Umení TUKE

Evanj UK

Teol.TVU

FilmTel VŠMU

VýtvarUm AU

VŠVU BL

Divadelná VŠMU

DramUm AU

HudTan VŠMU

MuzUm AU

2006

2005

102

SOC faculty group


503,5

204,5

172,4

160,8

160,3

156,6

150,7

150,2

140,1

129,1

113,5

110,8

99,3

95,6

94,4

93,6

86,3

79,7

79,4

78,4

77,1

76,3

74,9

67,4

64,0

60,5

60,2

60,0

55,3

52,9

47,0

46,8

44,5

40,5

30,1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Zdravotníctva KU

SocEkon TUAD

Manažment PU

Zdravotníctva PU

Eur.Št. SPU

Soc UKF

Pedag PU

MasMed UCM

Pedag KU

Manag UK

Ekonom UMB

VerSpr UPJŠ

Práv UMB

Práv UK

Pedag UKF

Pedag UK

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Ekonom TUKE

HospInfo EU BA

PodnHosp. EU BA

Obchod EU BA

MedzVzťah EU BA

Pedag UMB

Pedas ŽU

Pedag TVU

PodnMan EU BA

Práv UPJŠ

EkonomManSPU

Polit UMB

NárHosp. EU BA

SocEkon UK

Práv TVU

TV UK

ZdravSoc TVU

Športu PU

2005

2006

103

SV3 Proportion of teachers with PhD

As an illustration we give the values of this ratio for a number of faculties.

Table 27: The ratio of teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers

Faculty

Proportion of teachers with a PhD to the total number of teachers at the faculty (%)

Orthodox Theological Faculty PU

Faculty of Natural Sciences UK

Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA

Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources SPU

Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU

Faculty of Pharmacy UK

HUM

NAT

TECH

AGRO

SOC

MED

86

83

86

89

90

72

The values for this ratio vary, but correlation with success in the area of publications and citations is relatively low. A more detailed study of the data shows that even in the longer established faculties the proportion of teachers without a PhD is relatively high.

We assume that all active professors and associate professors operating in Slovak universities have gained the academic degree of PhD (or its equivalent CSc, Dr, ArtD, ThDr). For other teachers the PhD degree is a sign of a certain scientific qualification and therefore also a certain level of quality. We can assume that the higher the proportion of teachers having the academic degree of PhD (and its equivalent) in the overall number of teachers, the higher the potential level of quality in the research and educational activity of the faculty. The differences are highly pronounced in the faculties oriented towards the humanities. While, for example, 86% of all teachers at the PU Faculty of Orthodox Theology have a PhD degree (it was 79% in 2004), only every third teacher at the TU Košice Faculty of Arts has such a degree. There are even greater differences in social science faculties. 86% of the teaching staff at the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work has a PhD degree (it was 86% in 2004), while at the similarly oriented PU Faculty of Healthcare only every fifth teacher has this degree (22%; the lowest value of all among the faculties of Slovak universities; in 2004 it was 19%). Not even the faculties oriented towards the natural sciences escape this trend to a large extent. While the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences has this ratio at 83%, the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences has 37%. The technology-

oriented faculties are somewhat better ranging from 86% in the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology to 51% in the TU Košice Faculty of Aeronautics. In the case of the MED group faculties, the range is relatively narrow: 72% for the UK Faculty of Pharmacy and 57% for the UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine. The best results are shown by the faculties in the AGRO group where the proportion of teachers with PhD degrees was as high as 89% in the SPU Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources (with the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work, 90% - the highest value of all for faculties of Slovak universities). The last placed faculty in this group was the TU Zvolen Faculty of Wood Sciences with 67%.

Although the situation somewhat improved in comparison with 2004, it remains worrying that amongst all teachers in Slovak universities only 45% (in 2004, the figure was even only 40%) have a PhD degree or its equivalent, which means that more than half of all teachers in Slovak higher education have not completed the third level of higher education. A possible objection is that this group includes young faculty employees under 35 who are still studying; they do not however by far amount to 55% of all university teachers. There are faculties with satisfactory numbers of teachers with PhD (75% and more – 22 out of 100 faculties), but also ones that do not reach even two thirds of teachers with PhD (38 such faculties). The high proportion of teachers without a PhD teaching in the faculties of Slovak universities is still alarming.

104

Ratio of teachers with a PhD to the total number of teachers in 2005

SV3

MED faculty group

Proportion of teachers with PhD

72%67%

62%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%Fa

rm U

K

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UPJ

Š

20052006

NAT faculty group


86%79% 77% 74% 72% 70% 70% 69%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Prír

UPJ

Š

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h. S

TUBA

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UC

M

Prír

UKF

Ekol

env

TUZ

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Prír

ŽU

2005

2006

105

AGRO faculty group


89%84% 83%

77%72%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Agro

SPU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Les

TUZV

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Záhr

ad S

PU

Dre

v TU

ZV

2005

2006

106

TECH faculty group


51%

52%

53%

59%

59%

63%

67%

68%

68%

69%

69%

70%

70%

72%

73%

74%

74%

74%

77%

78%

78%

79%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Letecká TUKE

Riadenia ŽU

MechTron TUAD

PriemTech TUAD

MatTechn STUBA

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Stroj STUBA

Stroj TUKE

Stav ŽU

Elektr ŽU

Stav TUKE

Ban TUKE

Archit STUBA

EnvirTech. TUZV

ŠpecInž ŽU

Elektr TUKE

Mech SPU

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

VýrTech TUKE

Stroj ŽU

Elektr STUBA

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

107

HUM faculty group


33%

37%

47%

47%

49%

50%

50%

53%

55%

57%

61%

63%

64%

65%

66%

67%

70%

71%

72%

72%

76%

84%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Umení TUKE

Filolo UMB

VýtvarUm AU

RímsKat UK

Hum UMB

VŠVU BL

Fil KU

Fil UKF

Fil UCM

Teol KU

MuzUm AU

Divadelná VŠMU

HudTan VŠMU

Fil TVU

Fil PU

FilmTel VŠMU

Greckokat.PU

HumPrír PU

DramUm AU

Evanj UK

Fil UK

Teol.TVU

Pravosl.PU

2006

2005

108

SOC faculty group


22%

34%

36%

45%

47%

50%

50%

50%

52%

54%

54%

55%

57%

57%

57%

57%

62%

63%

63%

64%

65%

65%

66%

66%

67%

68%

68%

69%

69%

70%

71%

71%

71%

87%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Zdravotníctva PU

Zdravotníctva KU

MasMed UCM

Pedag KU

Polit UMB

SocEkon TUAD

Pedag UKF

Pedag PU

Manažment PU

PodnMan EU BA

VerSpr UPJŠ

Práv TVU

HospInfo EU BA

Manag UK

Ekonom UMB

Práv UMB

Ekonom TUKE

EkonomManSPU

Pedag TVU

Pedag UK

Športu PU

Pedas ŽU

Práv UK

PodnHosp. EU BA

Pedag UMB

Obchod EU BA

NárHosp. EU BA

Práv UPJŠ

MedzVzťah EU BA

Eur.Št. SPU

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Soc UKF

SocEkon UK

TV UK

ZdravSoc TVU

2006

2005

109

SV4 The number of professors and associate professors divided by the number of all teachers

This ratio varies between 10% and 60% and for most faculties the value is in the middle of this range.

Table 28: Ratio of the number of teachers with the degree of professor or associate professor to the total number of teachers in 2005

Faculty

Proportion of professors and associate professors to the total

number of teachers at the faculty (%)

Faculty of Theatre Arts VSMU

Faculty of Natural Sciences UPJS

Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology STUBA

Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen

Faculty of Health Care and Social Work TvU

Faculty of Pharmacy UK

HUM

NAT

TECH

AGRO

SOC

MED

60

48

58

56

45

34

Compared to 2004, this parameter only very slightly changed for the better.

In universities, professors and associate professors are considered to be the teachers with the highest qualification. This means that the more such teachers a faculty has, the greater should be the quality of its educational and research activities. A higher number of professors and associate professors also means a potentially higher number of accredited study programs, a potentially higher number of grants etc. The results are not dominated by any of the faculty groups but there are also relatively large differences within all the groups. It is worrying that out of 100 faculties assessed, the proportion of associate professors and professors in the total teaching staff exceeded 50% in only four (three in 2004) cases (the VŠMU Theatre Faculty 60%, the TvU Faculty of Theology 58%, the STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology 58%, and the TUZV Faculty of Forestry 56%).

There are very sharp differences in the faculties oriented towards the humanities: 60% the VŠMU Theatre Faculty and 18% the UK Faculty of Roman Catholic

Theology. There is the same situation in the SOC faculty group: 45% the TvU Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work and 10% the PU Faculty of Healthcare (which is the lowest value for any faculty of a Slovak university). There are also differences among the faculties oriented towards the natural sciences: the UPJŠ Faculty of Natural Sciences has the greatest proportion with 48% with the UMB Faculty of Natural Sciences ranging last with 24%. Similarly in the case of the TECH group faculties, STU Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology has 58% and the ŽU Faculty of Management and Informatics has 23%. The distribution in the AGRO group is similar: 56% in the TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry and 31% in the STU Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering. The MED group of faculties has the smallest differences: 34% the UK Faculty of Pharmacy and 27% the UPJŠ Faculty of Medicine.

There are faculties in Slovak public higher education institutions where the number of associated professors and professors does not reach even one third of the number of teachers. Such faculties comprise nearly one half (42) of the total.

110

The number of professors and associate professors divided by the number of all teachers in 2005

SV4

MED faculty group

The proportion of professors and associate professors

34% 34%

29%27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%Fa

rm U

K

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


48% 47%44% 43%

39% 37%

31%

24% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Prír

UPJ

Š

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Prír

UC

M

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UKF

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UM

B

2005

2006

111

AGRO faculty group


56%

47%44%

40% 40%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Le

s TU

ZV

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Dre

v TU

ZV

Agro

SPU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

2005

2006

112

TECH faculty group


23%

28%

30%

32%

33%

35%

35%

37%

38%

38%

39%

40%

40%

42%

42%

42%

43%

43%

47%

47%

48%

48%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Riadenia ŽU

Letecká TUKE

MechTron TUAD

MatTechn STUBA

VýrTech TUKE

Stav TUKE

Stroj TUKE

Archit STUBA

Ban TUKE

Stav STUBA

Stav ŽU

Stroj ŽU

ŠpecInž ŽU

Elektr TUKE

Elektr ŽU

Stroj STUBA

PriemTech TUAD

EnvirTech. TUZV

Mech SPU

Elektr STUBA

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Hutn TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

2006

2005

113

HUM faculty group


18%

22%

26%

26%

27%

27%

28%

28%

30%

30%

32%

36%

37%

37%

38%

40%

42%

42%

43%

46%

46%

58%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

RímsKat UK

Filolo UMB

Teol KU

Fil UKF

Hum UMB

Umení TUKE

Fil UCM

Fil KU

Fil PU

Greckokat.PU

Pravosl.PU

Fil UK

HumPrír PU

Fil TVU

Evanj UK

VŠVU BL

DramUm AU

MuzUm AU

VýtvarUm AU

HudTan VŠMU

FilmTel VŠMU

Teol.TVU

Divadelná VŠMU

2006

2005

114

SOC faculty group


10%

14%

18%

21%

22%

22%

23%

24%

24%

25%

25%

25%

26%

26%

26%

26%

27%

29%

29%

29%

32%

35%

36%

36%

36%

37%

39%

39%

39%

40%

40%

42%

42%

43%

45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Zdravotníctva PU

Zdravotníctva KU

Pedag PU

Pedag UK

Pedag UKF

MasMed UCM

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Ekonom UMB

Soc UKF

Práv UMB

SocEkon TUAD

MedzVzťah EU BA

VerSpr UPJŠ

Manažment PU

Pedag KU

Eur.Št. SPU

Ekonom TUKE

Polit UMB

HospInfo EU BA

Športu PU

PodnHosp. EU BA

Manag UK

TV UK

Pedas ŽU

PodnMan EU BA

Práv UK

Práv UPJŠ

EkonomManSPU

Práv TVU

Obchod EU BA

SocEkon UK

Pedag TVU

NárHosp. EU BA

Pedag UMB

ZdravSoc TVU

2006

2005

115

SV5 Average age of professors

The average age of professors (here referring to active professors) ranges from 51 to 65 years, and in most faculties the value is in the middle of this distribution.

Table 29: The average age of teachers in the functional position of professor in 2005

Faculty Average age of active professor

Greek Catholic Theological Faculty PU

Faculty of Natural Sciences UMB

Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology TU Zvolen (and others)

Faculty of Forestry TU Zvolen

Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences UK

Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK

HUM

NAT

TECH

AGRO

SOC

MED

51

53

54

58

55

56

The criterion of the average age of professors holding a functional position (active professor) is a typical example of a criterion that can be seen from a number of points of view. A higher average age may represent a higher level of experience, proven traditional research, more conservative and possibly more mature view of matters. It can also be viewed negatively as indicating that professors are overage with low performance and low dynamism. A staff of professors with a lower average age may, on the other hand, be perceived as precisely the opposite, as dynamic, productive, enthusiastic and capable of rapid reactions to a changing situation, but at the same time also a group with experience that is little for the highest rank of the academic hierarchy. We believe that a good combination is a balance of both categories. It is however also necessary to bear in mind that under the Higher Education Act, a university teacher may no longer be employed on an unlimited employment contract or, in general, act as the guarantor of a study program after reaching the age of sixty five.

In the faculties oriented towards the humanities we can observe differences of up to 15 years. While the average age of the active professors at the “youngest” Slovak faculty, the PU Faculty of Greek Catholic Theology, is only 51 years, it is as many as 65 years at the TvU Faculty of Theology. There is a similar situation in faculties oriented towards the social sciences (the difference is 10 years). The UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences (and 3 more faculties with it – the UK Faculty of Education, the PU Faculty of Education, and the KU Faculty of Healthcare) with the professors having an average age of 55 years are the “youngest” faculties. On the other hand, the EU Faculty of Business Management with the average age of 65 years is the “oldest” in the group.

The “youngest” faculty in the group with natural science orientation is the UMB Faculty of Natural Sciences

with the average age of active professors being 53 years. In this group (NAT) the “oldest” is the UCM Faculty of Natural Sciences (63 years). The difference in this group of faculties is 10 years. In the TECH faculty group, the difference is 11 years between the TU Zvolen Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences with the average of 54 years (and additional five faculties with the same average: the TU Košice Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, the ŽU Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, the TU Košice Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology, the TU Košice Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies, the TU Košice Faculty of Aeronautics) and the TUAD Faculty of Industrial Technologies (65 years). The smallest differences are in the AGRO group (a difference of 7 years): the TU Zvolen Faculty of Wood Sciences (and two more institutions: the University of Veterinary Medicine and the TU Zvolen Faculty of Forestry) with 58 years and the SPU Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering with 65 years. A similar situation applies in the case of the MED group of faculties (a difference of 6 years): 56 years in the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine and 62 years in the UK Faculty of Medicine.

The average age of active professors in Slovak universities is 58 years. The average age of active professors with the academic rank of DrSc., i.e. the people with the highest academic qualification, is four years higher. It can be concluded that the high age of professors and associate professors continues to be alarming.

In comparison with 2004, the situation improved for example in the fact that there is no faculty of a public higher education institution with the average age of professors over 65 years while there are four faculties with the average age of professors of 65 years.

116

Average age of professors holding a functional position (active professor) in 2005

SV5

MED faculty group

The average age of active professors

56 5760

62

40

45

50

55

60

65

Jess

enLe

kU

K

Lek

UPJ

Š

Farm

UK

Lek

UK

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


5355

57 58 58 5961 61

63

40

45

50

55

60

65

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

UKF

FMFI

UK

Prír

UK

Prír

ŽU

Ekol

env

TUZ

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

117

AGRO faculty group


58 58 58 5961

65

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Dre

vTU

ZV

Les

TUZV

Vete

rLek

.U

VL

Agro

SPU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Záhr

adSP

U

2005

2006

TECH faculty group


65

64

60

59

59

58

58

58

58

57

57

57

56

56

56

56

56

54

54

54

54

54

54

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

PriemTech TUAD

MechTron TUAD

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Elektr STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Hutn TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

Mech SPU

Riadenia ZU

Archit STUBA

Stav STUBA

Stav TUKE

Elektr ŽU

MatTechn STUBA

Stav ŽU

Stroj TUKE

ŠpecInž ŽU

Ban TUKE

Elektr TUKE

EnvirTech. TUZV

Letecká TUKE

Stroj ŽU

VýrTech TUKE

2006

2005

118

HUM faculty group


65

64

62

62

62

60

59

59

59

58

57

57

56

56

56

55

55

55

54

53

53

52

51

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Teol.TVU

Fil TVU

DramUm AU

Evanj UK

Fil KU

VýtvarUm AU

Fil UCM

MuzUm AU

Umení TUKE

Fil UKF

Hum UMB

VŠVU BL

Fil UK

HumPrír PU

Pravosl.PU

Divadelná VŠMU

RímsKat UK

Teol KU

Filolo UMB

Fil PU

FilmTel VŠMU

HudTan VŠMU

Greckokat.PU

2006

2005

119

SOC faculty group


65

64

64

63

63

62

62

62

61

61

61

61

61

60

60

59

59

59

59

59

59

58

58

58

57

57

57

57

56

56

55

55

55

55

50 55 60 65 70

PodnMan EU BA

MedzVzťah EU BA

SocEkon TUAD

Polit UMB

Práv TVU

Eur.Št. SPU

NárHosp. EU BA

Pedag UMB

EkonomManSPU

HospInfo EU BA

Manag UK

Pedag UKF

Soc UKF

Obchod EU BA

ZdravSoc TVU

Pedag KU

Pedag TVU

PodnHosp. EU BA

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Športu PU

TV UK

Ekonom TUKE

Pedas ŽU

Práv UPJŠ

Ekonom UMB

MasMed UCM

Práv UMB

VerSpr UPJŠ

Manažment PU

Práv UK

Pedag PU

Pedag UK

SocEkon UK

Zdravotníctva KU

Zdravotníctva PU

2006

2005

120

Table 30: Overview of the results in the Students and Teachers area AGRO No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 100 100 87 83 100 93,9 2 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 46 56 93 100 100 79,0

3 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 35 30 100 72 98 67,0

4 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 38 32 94 71 95 66,0

5 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 36 34 74 78 100 64,8

6 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 29 19 80 56 89 54,7

HUM

No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 100 100 70 71 86 85,5

2 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 80 87 74 76 98 83,1

3 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 83 83 83 70 82 80,2

4 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 52 74 73 100 93 78,2

5 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 74 70 57 67 89 71,6 6 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 35 48 97 97 78 71,3 7 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 66 68 54 72 85 69,2

8 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 45 49 77 78 96 69,0

9 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 48 43 84 63 82 63,8 10 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 35 30 88 60 91 60,9

11 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and Methodius Comenius University 65 28 55 30 93 54,2

12 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 12 9 100 53 91 53,0

13 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 16 14 83 61 91 52,8

14 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 22 15 76 50 96 51,9 15 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 22 20 76 62 80 51,8 16 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 11 8 81 51 100 50,2 17 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 47 30 38 45 86 49,4 18 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 39 20 43 37 94 46,8

19 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 20 13 64 47 86 46,2

20 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 14 9 62 44 88 43,4

21 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 16 11 58 47 82 42,8 22 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 12 8 57 45 89 42,1

MED No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 100 93 99 90 96,4 2 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 82 72 87 86 100 85,4 3 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 66 66 100 100 93 85,1 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 76 60 79 78 98 78,3

NAT

No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average

1 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University 100 100 90 97 91 95,8

2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 76 78 94 100 96 89,0 3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 70 65 100 90 91 83,4

4 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 58 46 81 77 87 69,9

5 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 48 44 76 89 84 68,2


7 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 30 15 71 50 100 53,4 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 42 22 44 51 90 49,5

121

Table 30: Overview of the results in the Students and Teachers area (continued) SOC No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 87 100 100 100 92 95,7 2 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 100 91 96 79 93 92,0 3 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 84 86 79 89 100 87,7 4 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 87 87 61 87 87 81,8 5 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 71 77 75 93 89 81,1 6 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 68 67 76 86 95 78,4 7 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 69 68 70 86 90 76,3 8 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 60 63 70 92 93 75,7

9 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations Matej Bel University 99 73 52 64 87 75,2

10 Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications University of Žilina 66 60 73 79 95 74,6

11 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 67 60 79 85 72,8 12 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 49 54 75 95 89 72,4 13 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 52 53 75 88 92 71,8 14 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 82 53 76 56 86 70,7 15 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 64 52 73 70 93 70,5 16 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 75 51 69 59 95 69,7 17 Faculty of Education Comenius University 80 43 71 47 100 68,1 18 Faculty of Law Comenius University 46 42 73 81 98 67,9 19 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 69 51 63 65 90 67,5 20 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 66 41 64 54 96 64,1

21 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 76 43 56 49 90 62,7

22 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 60 36 64 52 96 61,5 23 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 56 37 61 56 96 61,3 24 Faculty of Management Comenius University 36 31 63 76 90 59,4

25 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher University 42 26 79 53 90 58,0

26 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development Slovak University of Agriculture 38 25 78 58 89 57,5

27 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 59 27 56 40 100 56,2 28 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 44 29 50 57 93 54,7

29 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 47 27 40 49 96 52,1

30 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 31 20 55 55 86 49,4

31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 98 25 24 22 x 42,4

TECH No. Faculty University SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4 SV5 Average 1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 100 100 100 100 93 98,6

2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak Technical University 69 56 91 81 92 77,6

3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 62 52 89 83 93 75,8 4 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 74 47 81 64 95 72,2 5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 69 50 77 72 92 72,0 6 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 77 46 80 61 95 71,7 7 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 56 38 90 68 100 70,6

8 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical university in Zvolen 54 40 84 75 100 70,6

9 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 52 37 85 72 100 69,3

10 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 58 38 86 66 95 68,5 11 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 55 39 80 72 96 68,4 12 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 44 36 85 81 93 67,7 13 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 56 37 78 67 96 66,9

14 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 48 39 73 82 90 66,5

15 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 55 41 68 74 83 64,3

16 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 38 22 90 57 100 61,3 17 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 42 25 78 61 96 60,5

18 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology Technical University of Košice 31 20 80 65 100 59,4

19 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 25 17 84 69 96 58,3

20 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 45 24 68 54 96 57,7

21 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 48 19 60 39 93 51,8

22 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 34 18 61 52 84 49,8

122

6.2.2 “Applications for Study” Group

SV6 Admission proceedings: ratio of actual number of applications received to the planned number There are marked differences between faculties in the SOC and HUM groups, where there is high interest in study, and between the faculties in the TECH and NAT groups, where interest is lower. In the SOC and HUM groups there are also increases in the high number of students in part-time study. The situation is the same throughout Europe. A welcome fact is that interest in the TECH group increased somewhat in 2005. Table 31 shows a number of values by way of illustration.

With an exception for two faculties (the KU Faculty of Theology – 0.6; the KU Faculty of Education – 0.9) for all the remaining faculties the ratio of applications for study received to the number of students the university planned to admit was greater than or equal to 1. This is probably a due to two main factors: (a) from various reasons, students apply to more than one faculty; (b) demand for study is still greater than supply.

Interest in study and also the likelihood of admission to it can also be illustrated from the applicant’s point of view by a criterion based on the ratio of the number of applications submitted to the number of offered (planned) places set by the faculty (university). Under current legislation an applicant may submit applications to all faculties of Slovak universities at the same time. Applicants for full time study submitted on average only 2.2 applications and for applicants for part time study it was 1.2. Slovak university faculties accepted 77% of applicants for full time study and 69% of applicants for part time study39. This information does not take into consideration, however, the number of applicants who went on to take part in entrance tests (where faculties organise them).

Table 31: The number of students applying for full time study compared to the planned number for the academic year 2005/2006

39 Report on the situation in Slovak higher education for 2005, the SR Ministry of Education for the SR National Council (June 2006).

The greatest interest was in faculties oriented towards the arts, where the TU Košice Faculty of Arts for example records 7 applicants for each place while the KU Faculty of Theology offers nearly 2 places for each applicant. The value for this faculty (0.65) is the lowest for any faculty of a Slovak university. The greatest interest of all is in study at the TvU Faculty of Philosophy – 8.6 applicants for 1 place offered. In the SOC group faculties, the lowest ratio of 0.95 is at the KU Faculty of Education; the highest interest is in the SPU Faculty of Economics and Management – 8.1. Faculties in the NAT group range from 2.7 for the UKF Faculty of Natural Sciences to 1.1 for the UCM Faculty of Natural Sciences. There is a similar situation with regard to TECH where the highest ratio is 7.9 (in 2004, it was 5!) in the TU Košice Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology and the lowest is 0.96 for the TUAD Faculty of Special Technologies. In the case of the AGRO group, the highest number of applicants is for study at the SPU Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering (2.5) and the lowest at TUZV Faculty of Forestry (1.7). For the MED group of faculties, the greatest number of prospective students applied for one place at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (5.5) and the fewest at UPJS Faculty of Medicine (2.2).

It appears that there is traditionally the greatest pressure in medical and social science subjects, partially the humanities (one half) with fewer students being interested particularly in technical and natural science subjects and certain faculties of the HUM and SOC groups.

Faculty

Number of full-time applications received in proportion to number planned for

admission Faculty of Arts TvU Faculty of Natural Sciences UKF Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology TU Košice Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU Faculty of Economics and Management SPU Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK


8,6 2,7 7,9 2,5 8,1 5,5

123

Number of applications received in proportion to number planned for admission in acad. year 2005/2006 SV6

MED faculty group

The number of applications to the planned number

5,54,8

3,4

2,2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Lek

UK

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2006

2006

NAT faculty group


2,7 2,72,5 2,5

2,11,8

1,5 1,31,1

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Prír

UKF

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

ŽU

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UM

B

FMFI

UK

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

124

AGRO faculty group


2,5

2,1 2,01,8 1,8 1,7

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Záhr

ad S

PU

Dre

v TU

ZV

Agro

SPU

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Les

TUZV

2005

2006

125

TECH faculty group


1,0

1,0

1,0

1,0

1,1

1,2

1,2

1,5

1,5

1,5

1,6

1,6

1,8

1,8

1,9

2,0

2,0

2,1

2,1

2,2

2,5

3,3

7,9

0 2 4 6 8 10

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Stroj TUKE

PriemTech TUAD

Stav TUKE

Stroj STUBA

Elektr TUKE

Elektr STUBA

Stav STUBA

Hutn TUKE

Letecká TUKE

Stroj ŽU

Stav ŽU

Archit STUBA

VýrTech TUKE

Mech SPU

Riadenia ŽU

Elektr ŽU

ChemTechn. STUBA

MechTron TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

EnvirTech. TUZV

MatTechn STUBA

Ban TUKE

2006

2005

126

HUM faculty group


0,6

1,1

1,1

1,2

1,3

1,4

1,4

1,5

1,5

2,0

2,3

3,1

3,1

3,6

3,6

4,3

4,3

5,4

5,4

5,5

6,4

7,4

8,6

0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0

Teol KU

RímsKat UK

Hum UMB

Filolo UMB

Evanj UK

Greckokat.PU

Fil KU

Teol.TVU

HudTan VŠMU

MuzUm AU

FilmTel VŠMU

HumPrír PU

Fil PU

Pravosl.PU

Fil UK

DramUm AU

Divadelná VŠMU

Fil UKF

VýtvarUm AU

VŠVU BL

Fil UCM

Umení TUKE

Fil TVU

2006

2005

127

SOC faculty group


0,0

0,9

1,1

1,4

1,5

1,6

2,0

2,1

2,3

2,5

2,6

2,7

2,8

2,9

3,0

3,1

3,3

3,3

3,3

3,4

3,4

3,5

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,3

4,3

4,7

4,7

5,4

5,4

5,7

5,7

5,9

8,1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Zdravotníctva KU

Pedag KU

Zdravotníctva PU

TV UK

Pedag PU

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

HospInfo EU BA

SocEkon UK

Pedag UKF

Pedag UMB

Športu PU

Pedag TVU

Ekonom UMB

VerSpr UPJŠ

Manažment PU

Pedag UK

MedzVzťah EU BA

Polit UMB

Práv UPJŠ

PodnMan EU BA

SocEkon TUAD

PodnHosp. EU BA

Pedas ŽU

ZdravSoc TVU

NárHosp. EU BA

Soc UKF

Eur.Št. SPU

Práv UK

MasMed UCM

Ekonom TUKE

Obchod EU BA

Práv TVU

Práv UMB

Manag UK

EkonomManSPU

2006

2005

128

SV7 Admission proceedings: number of registered students in proportion to the number of admitted This ratio ranges mostly from 40% to 100% and may, inter alia, show to which faculties students submitted applications to as an “insurance policy” and which faculties they really wanted to study at. Illustrative values would not provide a great deal of information and it is more interesting to look at the individual groups of faculties.

Table 32: The number of students registered for full time study compared to the number of offers issued for the academic year 2005/2006 Faculty

Number of registered students in proportion to the number of offers (%)

Faculty of Theology TvU, RKCMBF UK Faculty of Natural Sciences ZU Faculty of Architecture STUBA Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering SPU, Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology TU Zvolen Faculty of Economics and Management SPU, Faculty of Law UK Faculty of Pharmacy UK

HUM NAT TECH

AGRO SOC MED

100 67 79

77 91 86

The criterion of the ratio of the number of registered applicants for study to the number of offers issued by the faculty reflects the real interest of prospective students in study. Apart from two faculties that had 100% success all faculties issued more offers than they finally registered students. In the group of faculties oriented towards the humanities there were differences up to 60%. While, as expected, the greatest number of offers led to registrations in the artistic faculties (VŠVU 98%), the UCM Faculty of Philosophy did not register as many as 60% of the students it offered places to. It is similar in the case of the SOC faculty group, where as many as 91% of those offered places registered at the SPU Faculty of Economics and Management, but only 46% registered at the EU Faculty of Business Management. Even the NAT faculty group did not deviate significantly from these trends. 67% of those offered places at the ŽU Faculty of Natural Sciences registered (a 15% drop compared to 2004!), while the UPJŠ Faculty of Natural Sciences and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences registered only 42% of those offered places, which, along with the UCM Faculty of Philosophy (40%), are the lowest values from the one hundred faculties assessed.

The faculties of technical orientation (TECH) are dominated by the STU Faculty of Architecture with 79% with the STU Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology

being the other extreme (43% of the registered). The AGRO group is led by the SPU Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering with 77%, with the lowest value at the SPU Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources with 61%. It may come as a surprise that even the faculties in the MED group did not register all the potential students that they made offers to. The best in this was the UK Faculty of Pharmacy with 86% and the lowest number was at the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (51% of offers made). It is clear that this indicator can be influenced by whether a particular faculty has a “monopoly” in an area of study or whether there are more faculties with the same or similar focus. The distance of the applicant’s home from the location of the university is also a factor.

However, the fact needs to be taken into consideration that many faculties, knowing that substantially fewer students will register than they are able to admit in the optimal case, issue more admission decisions than implied by their actual capacity. That means that the low proportion of the registered compared to the issued admission decisions does not necessarily have to mean that the faculty failed to reach the headcount it planned to reach.

129

Number of registered students in proportion to the number of offers in the academic year 2005/2006 SV7

MED faculty group

Ratio of the registered to the admitted

86%

76%

67%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Farm

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

Lek

UK

Jess

enLe

k U

K

2005

2006

NAT faculty group


67% 65% 65%58%

52%48% 47%

42% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Prír

ŽU

Ekol

env

TUZ

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA FM

FI U

K

Prír

UKF

Prír

UC

M

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UK

Prír

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

130

AGRO faculty group


77% 77%71% 69%

61% 61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dre

v TU

ZV

Záhr

ad S

PU

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Agro

SPU

Les

TUZV

2006

2006

131

TECH faculty group


43%46%

48%54%

56%59%

59%61%

62%62%

63%63%

63%64%

65%67%

68%68%

69%71%

73%74%

79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MatTechn STUBA

Stroj ŽU

Ban TUKE

Stav ŽU

MechTron TUAD

Elektr TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

Riadenia ŽU

Elektr ŽU

EnvirTech. TUZV

Hutn TUKE

Stroj STUBA

ŠpecInž ŽU

PriemTech TUAD

Elektr STUBA

Stroj TUKE

Mech SPU

VýrTech TUKE

Stav STUBA

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Stav TUKE

Letecká TUKE

Archit STUBA

2006

2005

132

HUM faculty group


40%

51%

51%

61%

64%

65%

69%

75%

76%

80%

82%

82%

83%

84%

87%

89%

89%

95%

95%

95%

98%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fil UCM

Fil KU

Fil TVU

Hum UMB

Fil UKF

Teol KU

HumPrír PU

Fil PU

Greckokat.PU

VýtvarUm AU

Filolo UMB

Pravosl.PU

Fil UK

Umení TUKE

Evanj UK

DramUm AU

HudTan VŠMU

Divadelná VŠMU

FilmTel VŠMU

MuzUm AU

VŠVU BL

RímsKat UK

Teol.TVU

2006

2005

133

SOC faculty group


46%

49%

50%

52%

52%

55%

58%

58%

60%

60%

63%

64%

64%

65%

67%

68%

68%

68%

68%

69%

70%

70%

70%

71%

72%

72%

75%

76%

77%

83%

83%

84%

90%

91%

91%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PodnHosp. EU BA

Ekonom UMB

PodnMan EU BA

Pedag TVU

Práv TVU

NárHosp. EU BA

Práv UMB

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

HospInfo EU BA

Obchod EU BA

Ekonom TUKE

VerSpr UPJŠ

ZdravSoc TVU

Eur.Št. SPU

Zdravotníctva KU

Pedag UKF

Pedag UMB

Polit UMB

Práv UPJŠ

Pedag KU

Pedag UK

Pedas ŽU

Soc UKF

MedzVzťah EU BA

Manažment PU

SocEkon UK

Manag UK

MasMed UCM

SocEkon TUAD

Pedag PU

Športu PU

Zdravotníctva PU

TV UK

EkonomManSPU

Práv UK

2006

2005

134

SV8 Number of students with foreign state citizenship divided by the total number of full-time students

The proportion of the number of students with a nationality other than Slovak in the total number of full-time students reflects the international character of the university faculty. It is widely known that few foreign students study at Slovak universities. We even have faculties (17 in total, two more than in 2004) that do not report having any foreign students. The number of faculties with more than 10 percent of foreign students among full-time students is five (in 2004, there were four such faculties): the University of Veterinary Medicine

(18.0%), the VŠMU Faculty of Music and Dance (15.8%), the Academy of Fine Arts (14.0%), the UK Jessenius Faculty of Medicine (12.4%), and the UK Faculty of Pharmacy (10.0%). All these faculties increased the numbers of their foreign students in 2005.

It appears that most of the faculties of the Slovak public higher education institutions probably lack marketing strategy in attracting foreign students. At the same time, it is possible that their quality is not such that they could compete with related faculties at other higher education institutions in the neighbouring or more distant foreign countries. Many of them do not offer teaching in languages other than Slovak.

Table 33: Proportion of students with a different state citizenship Faculty

Proportion of foreign students (%)

Faculty of Music and Dance VSMU Faculty of Natural Sciences Faculty of Architecture STUBA University of Veterinary Medicine Faculty of International Relations EU Jessenius Faculty of Medicine UK


15,8 1,2 2,0 18,0 4,6 12,4

Number of students with foreign state citizenship per total number of students in the year 2005

SV8

MED faculty group

Proportion of foreign students

12,4%

10,0%

7,6%

4,3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Jess

enLe

k U

K

Farm

UK

Lek

UK

Lek

UPJ

Š

2005

2006

135

NAT faculty group


1,2%

1,0%

0,7%0,6%

0,6%

0,4% 0,3%

0,1%0,0%

0,0%

0,2%

0,4%

0,6%

0,8%

1,0%

1,2%

1,4%

Prír

UK

Info

r.aIn

f.Tec

h.ST

UBA

Prír

UKF

FMFI

UK

Ekol

env

TUZ

Prír

UM

B

Prír

UPJ

Š

Prír

ŽU

Prír

UC

M

2005

2006

AGRO faculty group


18,0%

1,7% 1,1% 1,0% 0,6% 0,3%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Vete

rLek

. UVL

Dre

v TU

ZV

Biot

Potr.

SPU

Záhr

ad S

PU

Agro

SPU

Les

TUZV

2005

2006

136

TECH faculty group


0,0%

0,0%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,2%

0,2%

0,2%

0,3%

0,3%

0,4%

0,6%

0,6%

0,7%

0,7%

0,9%

0,9%

1,5%

1,5%

2,0%

0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0% 2,5% 3,0%

PriemTech TUAD

ŠpecInž ŽU

Stav STUBA

VýrTech TUKE

MechTron TUAD

Stroj TUKE

Hutn TUKE

Riadenia ŽU

Stroj ŽU

EnvirTech. TUZV

Letecká TUKE

Stav ŽU

Ban TUKE

MatTechn STUBA

Elektr ŽU

Mech SPU

Stav TUKE

ŠpecTechn TUAD

Elektr TUKE

ChemTechn. STUBA

Elektr STUBA

Stroj STUBA

Archit STUBA

2006

2005

137

HUM faculty group


0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,2%

0,2%

0,3%

0,5%

0,9%

0,9%

1,1%

1,1%

1,2%

1,4%

1,6%

3,2%

3,2%

3,9%

6,8%

7,4%

8,0%

14,0%

15,8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

DramUm AU

Fil TVU

HumPrír PU

Pravosl.PU

Hum UMB

Fil KU

Fil UCM

Fil PU

Greckokat.PU

Filolo UMB

Teol KU

Fil UKF

Umení TUKE

RímsKat UK

Fil UK

Divadelná VŠMU

VýtvarUm AU

FilmTel VŠMU

MuzUm AU

Evanj UK

Teol.TVU

VŠVU BL

HudTan VŠMU

2006

2005

138

SOC faculty group


0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,2%

0,3%

0,3%

0,3%

0,4%

0,5%

0,6%

0,6%

0,8%

0,8%

0,8%

0,8%

0,8%

0,9%

1,2%

1,2%

1,3%

1,3%

1,3%

3,2%

3,8%

4,6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Manažment PU

Pedag PU

Pedag TVU

PodnHosp. EU BA

Práv TVU

Práv UMB

Sredoeur.Št.UKF

Športu PU

VerSpr UPJŠ

Zdravotníctva PU

Pedag KU

Práv UPJŠ

Pedag UKF

SocEkon TUAD

NárHosp. EU BA

Zdravotníctva KU

MasMed UCM

Polit UMB

ZdravSoc TVU

PodnMan EU BA

Eur.Št. SPU

Pedag UK

HospInfo EU BA

TV UK

Obchod EU BA

Ekonom TUKE

Ekonom UMB

EkonomManSPU

Práv UK

Pedag UMB

Soc UKF

SocEkon UK

Manag UK

Pedas ŽU

MedzVzťah EU BA

2006

2005

139

Table 34: Comparison of the results in the Applications for Study group

AGRO No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 70 92 100 87,5

2 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 100 100 6 68,6

3 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 81 100 9 63,4

4 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 72 90 6 56,0

5 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 79 79 3 53,7

6 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 67 79 2 49,3 HUM No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 64 98 89 83,6 2 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 18 89 100 68,9 3 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 85 84 7 58,8 4 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 17 100 51 55,9 5 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 50 95 20 55,0 6 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 63 80 20 54,3 7 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 23 95 43 53,8 8 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 100 51 - 50,3 9 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 15 87 47 49,7 10 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 27 95 25 48,9 11 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 50 89 - 46,2 12 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 41 83 10 44,9 13 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 62 64 7 44,3 14 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 41 82 - 41,0

15 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril and Methodius Comenius University 13 100 9 40,6

16 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 73 40 2 38,5 17 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 36 75 3 38,2

18 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 35 69 - 34,8

19 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 13 82 6 33,7 20 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 16 76 6 32,4 21 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 13 61 1 25,2 22 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 16 51 2 22,9

MED No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 100 59 100 86,4 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 62 100 81 80,7 3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 88 78 62 75,7 4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 39 88 35 54,3

NAT No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 99 63 100 87,2 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 100 78 58 78,4

3 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 65 97 46 69,3

4 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 90 100 8 65,8

5 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University 49 87 51 62,1

6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 92 63 28 60,8 7 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 54 70 29 50,9 8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 38 72 - 36,7

140

Table 34: Comparison of the results in the Applications for Study group (continued) SOC No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average

1 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 100 100 26 75,4

2 Faculty of Management Comenius University 72 82 70 74,9 3 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 40 78 100 72,8

4 Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications University of Žilina 43 77 81 67,2

5 Faculty of Law Comenius University 58 100 27 61,5

6 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher University 52 77 28 52,4

7 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 66 69 18 51,0 8 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 66 66 17 49,8

9 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 58 84 7 49,7

10 Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development Slovak University of Agriculture 53 71 13 45,9

11 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 26 79 29 44,7

12 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 70 64 - 44,7

13 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 17 99 17 44,3

14 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 30 75 27 44,0 15 Faculty of Education Comenius University 38 77 16 43,7

16 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 42 85 3 43,2

17 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 70 57 - 42,4

18 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 45 70 11 42,0

19 Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations Matej Bel University 41 75 9 41,5

20 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 41 75 2 39,2 21 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 48 60 7 38,3 22 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 42 55 13 36,4 23 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 18 91 - 36,3 24 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 35 54 19 35,9 25 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 24 66 16 35,5 26 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 36 70 - 35,3 27 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 28 75 3 35,2 28 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 13 92 - 35,2 29 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 43 51 - 31,1 30 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 33 57 - 30,1 31 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 12 76 1 29,6

TECH No. Faculty University SV6 SV7 SV8 Average 1 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 23 100 100 74,2

2 Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology Technical University of Košice 100 61 14 58,3

3 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak Technical University 15 82 75 57,4

4 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 14 80 76 56,5

5 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 26 75 44 48,2

6 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 24 86 31 46,9 7 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 13 92 34 46,5 8 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 12 90 35 45,5 9 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 25 78 30 44,7

10 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 15 75 42 43,8

11 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical university in Zvolen 31 78 8 39,3

12 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 23 86 6 38,1

13 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 42 54 18 38,1

14 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 19 87 4 36,7

15 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 25 77 7 36,3

16 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 28 80 - 36,0 17 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 19 80 7 35,2 18 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 27 71 6 34,7 19 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 12 85 7 34,5 20 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 21 68 13 34,0 21 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 12 81 - 31,1 22 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 20 58 8 28,9

141

6.2.3 University-Level Criteria group

SV9 Unemployed graduates (so-called production of the unemployed)

Since the number of university graduates unemployed for over 6 months was quite low in September, even lower than last year (115 graduates versus 362 in 2004), we will take into consideration graduates unemployed longer than 3 months (as at September 2006, there were 1,957 such graduates). In the present situation in the labour market, where virtually all university graduates find employment, the comparison of the demand for graduates will be better served by an examination of the speed at which they find a job. As information is only available40 structured only by higher education institutions – and considering the low numbers, structuring by faculties would not even be useful – it is only presented in the report for illustration of the picture of Slovak higher education institutions and is not included in the overall assessment.

40 Source: Central office of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, September 2006, www.upsvar.sk

For the sake of interest, we can state that at present university graduates make up les than 1 percent of unemployed graduates and the long-term trend is for this number to fall. In practice this means that there are effectively no university graduates among the long term unemployed because every one of them finds work eventually (even if it is not necessarily in the area that they studied, and in a position requiring higher education).

Of course, regional differences are reflected in this indicator to a considerable extent, as it is certainly easier to find a job for a graduate in Bratislava than in, e.g., Prešov, Košice, or Zvolen.

Proportion of graduates unemployed longer than 3 months(SV9, %)

0,31,9 2,2

3,0 3,0 3,1 3,54,1

5,0

6,97,9

8,5 8,5 8,8

11,411,512,112,1

15,1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

VŠM

U B

ratis

lava

VŠVU

Bra

tisla

va

UK

Brat

isla

va

AU B

ansk

á By

stric

a

KU R

užom

bero

k

TVU

Trn

ava

STU

Bra

tisla

va

UM

B Ba

nská

Bys

trica

EU B

ratis

lava

UKF

Nitr

a

ŽU Ž

ilina

TnU

AD T

renč

ín

UC

M T

rnav

a

TU K

ošic

e

SPU

Nitr

a

UVL

Koš

ice

UPJ

Š Ko

šice

PU P

rešo

v

TU Z

vole

n

20052006

142

SV 10 Students taking part in study abroad

The number of university students conducting part of their study abroad was again very low even if somewhat higher than last year (1,607 students versus 1,112 students last year). This case involves data obtained from the National Agency of the Socrates programme (SAAIC) and studentships within programmes administered by the SAIA agency (scholarships based on bilateral intergovernmental agreements, scholarships of the Austria – Slovakia Action and the CEEPUS Programme). Data structured by faculties is unavailable and therefore it is not possible to include this criterion in the overall assessment.

This indicator presents also the measure of institution’s internationalisation. Concerning students

conducting part of their study abroad, the most active ones in this area include higher education institutions of arts and the University of Veterinary Medicine, which range high above the average. Among Slovakia’s institutions, average performance can be seen for the Comenius University and the University of Economics. The lowest ranking higher education institutions include the Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, the Technical University in Zvolen, and the Catholic University in Ružomberok with very low values. By way of illustration, we calculate that if every graduate from the students currently studying at university were to spend at least one semester abroad, which is the recommendation that has emerged from the Bologna process, this would mean that every year over 15,000 students of public universities would need to be travelling as part of their study.

Students travelling abroad for part of their study divided by the number of all full-time students (SV10, %)

5,8

4,23,9 3,8

2,2 2,0 1,71,5 1,4 1,3 1,1 1,0 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

VŠVU

Bra

tisla

va

UVL

Koš

ice

VŠM

U B

ratis

lava

AU B

ansk

á By

stric

a

UK

Brat

isla

va

EU B

ratis

lava

UKF

Nitr

a

UPJ

Š Ko

šice

UM

B Ba

nská

Bys

trica

PU P

rešo

v

SPU

Nitr

a

STU

Bra

tisla

va

ŽU Ž

ilina

UC

M T

rnav

a

TU K

ošic

e

TVU

Trn

ava

TnU

AD T

renč

ín

TU Z

vole

n

KU R

užom

bero

k

2006

143

An interesting indicator monitoring the measure of higher education institution’s internationalisation may be the number of students coming to Slovak higher education institutions from abroad to the number of students of Slovak nationality. These include not only students completing their entire studies in Slovakia (SV8) but also those who conduct part of their studies at some of Slovak higher education institutions with education so received being recognised by the student’s home institution upon return.41 The graph on the right provides such overview. The higher education institutions – as opposed to the remaining graphs – are sorted alphabetically (vertical lines representing the average values of the particular monitored group).

As can be seen, higher education institutions of arts (the Academy of Music and Performing Arts and the Academy of Fine Arts) and the University of Veterinary Medicine are considerably open to internationalisation also from this point of view. It could be thus concluded that they actively contribute to the reputation abroad, that they adapted their teaching so that it can include also students other than Slovak, and that their “brand” is more attractive as a result than is the case with other public higher education institutions in Slovakia. It could be objected that the high ranking institutions involve relatively small higher education institutions with homogeneous subjects. However, this argument cannot be sustained, as the indicator shows average values for the Comenius University, that is – concerning the number of students and number of subjects – the largest higher education institution in Slovakia. Other higher education institutions show very poor results, which indicates that the institution lacks openness to foreign environments. Making themselves more attractive for foreign nationals is a very important challenge for the future for the higher education institutions as the Slovak population decreases year by year and it is very probable that the number of students will be decreasing in a long term. Only openness to the foreign countries may avert, in the future, the threat of institutions’ closing due to lack of students and lack of their interest (indications of this process being already apparent).

It is very positive that certain higher education institutions work actively on their openness contributing thus to the fulfilment of the Bologna process objectives and enabling the students to expand their knowledge with contacts with foreign countries and their culture.

41 Data on foreign students in Slovakia come from the Statistical Year-book issued by the Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education (www.uips.sk), from the National Agency of the Socrates programme (www.saaic.sk), from SAIA, n. o. (information for the Austria – Slovakia Action and the CEEPUS Programme) and from the House of Foreign Relations of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (data on scholars coming on the basis of intergovernmental bilateral agreements).

Foreign students in proportion to the number of all full-time students of Slovak nationality (%)

0,46

7,54

2,18

1,82

0,15

0,55

0,36

0,67

0,04

0,37

0,03

0,47

0,50

0,49

0,31

0,21

0,17

0,74

1,00

1,0

14,0

8,2

18,0

1,7

0,6

0,7

3,2

0,3

0,4

0,2

0,8

0,4

0,9

0,9

0,2

0,3

0,8

3,5

1,5

21,5

10,4

19,8

1,9

1,2

1,1

3,9

0,3

0,8

0,2

1,3

0,9

1,4

1,2

0,4

0,4

1,5

4,5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

ŽU Žilina

VŠVU Bratislava

VŠMU Bratislava

UVL Košice

UPJŠ Košice

UMB Banská Bystrica

UKF Nitra

UK Bratislava

UCM Trnava

TVU Trnava

TUAD Trenčín

TU Zvolen

TU Košice

STU Bratislava

SPU Nitra

PU Prešov

KU Ružomberok

EU Bratislava

AU Banská Bystrica

foreign students - part of the study foreign students - complete study

foreign students in total (2005)

144

6.3 Financing

F1 Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per student Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities, that is, per-student costs of education and research, represent the total amount of funding that the university gained from public sources in 2005 for its educational and scientific activities, for operation, for development, and also for students’ social security (catering, accommodation and grants for students) divided by the number of students of the given higher education institution. The proportion spent per one student indicates the level of equipment and is related to the quality of the environment in which students will study. The larger the volume allocated per student, the higher the number of points won by the faculty/higher education institution. At the same time, however, this parameter also reflects the requirements for study and also the differences in the criteria that the Ministry of Education applies in allocating funding to individual universities. Although the amount of the subsidy cannot be directly influenced by the institution, it indicates the quality of the study environment. In comparison with the last year, a change occurred consisting in the fact that the running costs are not taken into consideration (on which relevant data is unavailable) but rather the total costs per student are used.

F2 Success of the university’s business activities It is good that universities are using a larger proportion of their own resources to support and improve their main activities, i.e., research and education. Universities gain the largest part of their non-subsidy funding from their main activities (e.g., lifelong learning, contract research, grant funds, etc.). In addition to this they also do some business. The stated parameter shows that universities are no threat to the business sector but also that at present they are not capable of earning enough through these activities. No major changes occurred in comparison to the last year. The University of Veterinary Medicine moved from red figures to a moderate profit, while the Žilina University made a significant improvement. On the contrary, for STU, this ratio considerably dropped.

F3 The proportion of grant funding to the costs of main activities In other countries the proportion of funds intended for the support of research and development activities that the university gains in open competition is very often given as one of the key criteria determining the quality of the university. This number also reflects the level of research carried out in the faculty or university. It also provides information about the quality of the employees of the institution because the better the teachers and research and artistic employees of the faculty, the more grants they will be able to obtain (obviously, compared only within the given groups of faculties) and therefore the higher the level of quality they will be able to offer to their students.

Slovak universities would not be able to compete alongside the good world universities even in this competition. The best universities (e.g., Oxford University) are able to get half of their budget from such sources and average ones (e.g., Oregon University) obtain around 25% of their budget in contests for funds for research and development financing.

Costs of the higher education institution’s main activities per student (F1, SKK 000)

246

178 167

126111 104 97 89

73 66 6543 43 41 39 39 32 30 28

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

UVL

Koš

ice

VŠVU

Bra

tisla

va

AU B

ansk

á By

stric

a

VŠM

U B

ratis

lava

UPJ

Š Ko

šice

STU

Bra

tisla

va

UK

Brat

isla

va

TU Z

vole

n

TU K

ošic

e

SPU

Nitr

a

ŽU Ž

ilina

EU B

ratis

lava

PU P

rešo

v

TnU

AD T

renč

ín

TVU

Trn

ava

UKF

Nitr

a

UM

B Ba

nská

Bys

trica

KU R

užom

bero

k

UC

M T

rnav

a

20052006

The proportion of the revenues of the university’s business activities to the overall costs of its main activities (F2, %)

2,3

1,6 1,6 1,5

1,2

0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

ŽU Ž

ilina

STU

Bra

tisla

va

VŠVU

Bra

tisla

va

UM

B Ba

nská

Bys

trica

EU B

ratis

lava

SPU

Nitr

a

TU Z

vole

n

VŠM

U B

ratis

lava

TU K

ošic

e

AU B

ansk

á By

stric

a

UC

M T

rnav

a

UK

Brat

isla

va

TVU

Trn

ava

KU R

užom

bero

k

PU P

rešo

v

UVL

Koš

ice

UPJ

Š Ko

šice

UKF

Nitr

a

TnU

AD T

renč

ín

20052006

The proportion of grant funding to the costs of main activities (F3, %)

14,012,9

10,39,2

7,4 7,1 6,9 6,85,4

3,3 2,9 2,6 2,61,8 1,7 1,6 1,6

0,9 0,7

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

STU

Bra

tisla

va

UVL

Koš

ice

TnU

AD T

renč

ín

SPU

Nitr

a

TU K

ošic

e

ŽU Ž

ilina

TU Z

vole

n

UK

Brat

isla

va

UPJ

Š Ko

šice

TVU

Trn

ava

UKF

Nitr

a

UC

M T

rnav

a

PU P

rešo

v

UM

B Ba

nská

Bys

trica

VŠVU

Bra

tisla

va

EU B

ratis

lava

VŠM

U B

ratis

lava

AU B

ansk

á By

stric

a

KU R

užom

bero

k

20052006

145

7 Comparison of university teachers’ salaries For comparison and to complete the picture, we present a table taken from the Ministry of Education’s report on higher education institutions showing the salaries of professors, associate professors, fellows and other staff at individual higher education institutions. In table 35, data are highlighted for which the value is higher than the average.

Table 35: Comparison of university teachers’ average salaries in 2005

It can be noticed that there is a salary differentiation not only among individual institutions but also even within institutions. At certain institutions, a professor’s salary is on average a threefold of a fellow’s salary, elsewhere it is not higher even by 50%. At the Comenius University in Bratislava, a professor’s salary does not reach the nationwide average, although in activities that are primarily the responsibility of the professors – i.e., research, PhD training or grant acquisition – its faculties ranked high within their groups. Considering also the generally higher level of salaries in Bratislava, this finding will not please this institution’s professors42.

42 The staff remuneration system is fully within the competence of individual higher education institutions.

University Average salary of teachers

Average salary of professors

Average salary of associate professors

Average salary of fellows

Average salary of lecturers

STU Bratislava 28 857 Sk 42 380 Sk 33 252 Sk 23 770 Sk 17 181 Sk UVL Košice 28 014 Sk 38 286 Sk 30 845 Sk 23 354 Sk n.a. UKF Nitra 26 208 Sk 34 878 Sk 32 064 Sk 25 240 Sk 19 720 Sk SPU Nitra 26 016 Sk 35 353 Sk 30 595 Sk 22 361 Sk 15 417 Sk TU Košice 25 865 Sk 42 406 Sk 30 493 Sk 21 103 Sk 13 917 Sk ŽU Žilina 25 844 Sk 39 392 Sk 30 612 Sk 21 855 Sk 17 116 Sk TvU Trnava 25 203 Sk 32 596 Sk 28 096 Sk 22 512 Sk 16 400 Sk UK Bratislava 25 157 Sk 34 439 Sk 29 759 Sk 22 208 Sk 16 218 Sk VŠVU Bratislava 25 114 Sk 33 958 Sk 28 242 Sk 24 679 Sk 17 777 Sk UPJŠ Košice 24 151 Sk 33 244 Sk 27 802 Sk 21 901 Sk 17 020 Sk PU Prešov 24 073 Sk 33 405 Sk 28 224 Sk 22 069 Sk 17 241 Sk KU Ružomberok 23 781 Sk 34 088 Sk 27 609 Sk 20 808 Sk 17 745 Sk AU B.Bystrica 23 081 Sk 28 273 Sk 25 528 Sk 21 535 Sk 15 069 Sk VŠMU Bratislava 23 037 Sk 28 065 Sk 24 607 Sk 20 231 Sk n.a. TUAD Trenčín 23 011 Sk 31 086 Sk 27 032 Sk 20 277 Sk 16 976 Sk TU Zvolen 22 749 Sk 30 031 Sk 25 626 Sk 19 545 Sk 13 462 Sk EU Bratislava 21 887 Sk 31 174 Sk 26 483 Sk 19 609 Sk 15 312 Sk UCM Trnava 21 398 Sk 28 981 Sk 24 617 Sk 20 048 Sk 16 283 Sk UMB B.Bystrica 20 864 Sk 27 247 Sk 24 500 Sk 19 125 Sk 18 580 Sk UJS Komárno 18 654 Sk 40 258 Sk 19 417 Sk 16 889 Sk 12 662 Sk Average 24 962 Sk 35 243 Sk 29 475 Sk 21 787 Sk 17 063 Sk

146

8 Aggregate assessment of faculties within groups For the purposes of comparison and monitoring of possible development trends, ARRA publishes here two tables ranking the faculties within Frascati groups. Table 36 uses exactly the same criteria as in the last year’s report. The last two columns (to the very right) show the last year’s score and ranking of each faculty. It should be noted that the numbers of faculties in individual groups slightly differ compared to the last year. As ARRA does not assess shorter existing faculties as opposed to the last year43, it is possible that a faculty ranked 9th last year even if there are only 8 faculties in the particular group this year.

Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year) AGRO Faculty University teachers and

students applications

for study publications and citations

PhD studies grants AVERAGE Average

2005 Position

2005

1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 94 88 85 61 81 81,6 83,8 1

2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food

Sciences Slovak University of

Agriculture 66 56 76 49 65 62,4 41,3 6

3 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 79 49 54 61 42 57,0 65,5 2

4 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food

Resources Slovak University of

Agriculture 67 54 12 59 77 53,8 61,6 3

5 Faculty of Horticulture and

Landscape Engineering Slovak University of

Agriculture 55 69 4 83 43 50,6 55,5 5

6 Faculty of Wood Sciences and

Technology Technical university in

Zvolen 65 63 8 65 36 47,5 57,1 4

HUM

Faculty University teachers and students

applications for study

publications and citations


2005 Position

2005

1 Faculty of the Humanities and

Natural Sciences University of Prešov 53 35 72 14 64 47,6 53,0 3

2 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 61 45 58 43 17 44,9 64,7 1

3 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 83 69 - 57 8 43,3 42,6 11

4 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 69 49 - 69 26 42,7 47,9 7

5 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 52 38 47 35 41 42,6 53,8 2

6 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 71 56 - 67 19 42,5 44,7 9

7 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 72 84 - 29 14 39,6 50,1 5

8 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 78 55 - 42 22 39,3 49,0 6

9 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 52 50 22 38 23 37,3 51,0 4

10 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 49 59 - - 75 36,6 28,0 19

11 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 64 50 24 42 3 36,5 42,3 12

12 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 53 41 - 67 15 35,2 43,4 10

13 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 85 54 - - 34 34,6 47,1 8

14 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty

of Cyril and Methodius Comenius University 54 41 2 45 2 28,8 42,0 13

15 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 42 25 10 28 30 27,1 35,2 15

16 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 80 46 - - 0 25,3 32,4 17

17 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 43 44 0 26 10 24,8 35,3 14

18 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 69 54 - - 0 24,7 34,6 16

19 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 43 23 5 17 23 22,2 26,5 22

20 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 50 32 - 6 16 21,0 27,9 20

21 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 46 39 5 - 10 20,1 27,4 21

22 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 47 34 - - 4 16,9 20,5 23

MED





2005 Position

2005

1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 85 86 40 100 82 78,8 72,3 2

2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 85 81 100 46 81 78,5 79,3 1

3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 96 76 41 77 28 63,6 63,0 4

4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 54 48 67 24 54,4 70,7 3

43 See Chapter 3.2, Table 3.

147

Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year; continued)

NAT Faculty University teachers and

students applications for study



2005 Position 2005


Comenius University 96 62 97 81 77 82,6 82,3 1

2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 83 87 53 94 88 81,2 72,0 2

3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 89 61 62 60 56 65,4 68,2 3

4 Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 60 78 11 73 28 50,1 44,9 6


Technical university in Zvolen 70 69 9 66 17 46,2 47,0 4

6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 53 51 13 41 13 34,1 37,1 7

7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 50 66 1 17 6 27,8 35,4 8

8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 68 37 8 - 7 23,9 25,8 9

SOC





2005 Position 2005

1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work

University of Trnava 96 42 100 79 7 64,7 70,2 1

2 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 71 73 11 60 30 48,8 40,4 8

3 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports


4 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 70 51 10 14 85 46,0 47,5 5

5 Faculty of Economics and Management

Slovak University of Agriculture 76 75 3 32 35 44,2 46,6 6


University of Žilina 75 67 - 35 22 39,7 39,9 10

7 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 76 30 27 14 48 39,0 37,6 12

8 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 72 50 12 28 27 37,8 35,6 16


Slovak University of Agriculture 57 46 14 29 42 37,7 34,1 18

10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 82 42 - 25 38 37,4 34,4 17

11 Faculty of Education Comenius University 68 44 2 29 42 37,0 40,1 9

12 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences


13 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 81 38 10 20 25 34,8 36,7 14

14 Faculty of Management Comenius University 59 75 3 29 6 34,4 32,7 21

15 Faculty of Law Comenius University 68 62 1 19 19 33,7 36,8 13

16 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 56 36 - 26 47 33,0 39,0 11


Constantine the Philosopher University 58 52 5 11 38 32,9 27,3 30

18 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 61 36 3 20 43 32,6 32,9 19

19 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 63 35 - 25 36 31,8 35,7 15

20 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 36 4 16 18 29,5 32,8 20

21 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 72 44 7 20 4 29,4 30,2 26

22 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 67 35 10 20 13 29,1 31,8 25

23 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 71 31 8 23 11 28,9 32,2 23


Matej Bel University 75 42 5 15 3 28,0 30,1 27

25 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 39 4 9 9 27,9 32,5 22


Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 49 43 0 - 44 27,3 26,1 32

27 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 61 35 5 - 33 27,1 30,0 28

28 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 64 45 - 10 3 24,4 28,6 29

29 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 55 30 4 13 17 23,8 31,9 24


University of St. Cyril and Methodius 52 50 - - 10 22,3 25,0 33

31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 42 35 1 - 3 16,3 22,9 34

148

Table 36: Assessment of faculties in comparison to the last year (only the criteria used last year; continued)

TECH Faculty University teachers and

students applications for study



2005 Position 2005

1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology

Slovak Technical University 99 48 100 82 84 82,5 80,4 1

2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics


3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 76 35 19 69 43 48,4 51,7 5

4 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 72 74 1 48 40 47,1 45,6 11

5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 29 4 71 59 46,9 49,8 8

6 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 72 57 19 44 41 46,6 45,5 12


Technical University of Košice 59 58 15 67 31 46,2 53,4 4

8 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 64 31 27 46 47 43,0 48,4 9

9 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 68 37 20 44 37 41,3 47,2 10

10 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology

Technical university in Zvolen 71 39 2 49 38 39,9 54,5 3



12 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 60 35 5 53 41 38,8 50,4 6

13 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 72 47 12 36 26 38,3 44,5 13

14 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies


15 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 68 45 4 39 19 35,2 39,3 15

16 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 68 47 2 36 16 33,8 41,1 14

17 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 67 34 0 41 22 32,9 34,8 18

18 Faculty of Management and Informatics

University of Žilina 52 36 6 46 21 32,2 n.a. n.a.

19 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 67 45 - 19 28 31,8 33,4 19

20 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology


21 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 58 36 - 23 12 25,9 35,7 17

22 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 50 35 4 - 9 19,5 28,3 21

149

Table 37 then shows the ranking of faculties using all criteria analysed in the present report. As this is a methodological change, it can explain part of the changes in faculties’ ranking.

Table 37: Assessment of faculties within Frascati groups (all criteria)

AGRO Faculty University teachers and


for study publications and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE

1 University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 94 88 85 61 81 81,6

2 Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 66 56 76 49 65 62,4

3 Faculty of Forestry Technical university in Zvolen 79 49 54 61 42 57,0

4 Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 67 54 12 59 77 53,8

5 Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering

Slovak University of Agriculture 55 69 4 83 43 50,6

6 Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical university in Zvolen 65 63 8 65 36 47,5

HUM



publications and citations PhD studies grants AVERAGE

1 Faculty of the Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 53 35 72 14 64 47,6

2 Faculty of Arts Comenius University 61 45 58 43 17 44,9

3 Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 83 69 - 57 8 43,3

4 Faculty of Film and Television Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 69 49 - 69 26 42,7

5 Faculty of Arts University of Prešov 52 38 47 35 41 42,6

6 Faculty of Theology University of Trnava 71 56 - 67 19 42,5

7 Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 72 84 - 29 14 39,6

8 Faculty of Theatre Arts Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 78 55 - 42 22 39,3

9 Faculty of Arts University of Trnava 52 50 22 38 23 37,3

10 Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 49 59 - - 75 36,6

11 Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 64 50 24 42 3 36,5

12 Orthodox Theological Faculty University of Prešov 53 41 - 67 15 35,2

13 Faculty of Performing Arts Academy of Arts 85 54 - - 34 34,6

14 Roman Catholic Theological Faculty of Cyril

and Methodius Comenius University

54 41 2 45 2 28,8

15 Faculty of the Humanities Matej Bel University 42 25 10 28 30 27,1

16 Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 80 46 - - 0 25,3

17 Faculty of Arts Constantine the Philosopher University 43 44 0 26 10 24,8

18 Faculty of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Arts 69 54 - - 0 24,7

19 Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 43 23 5 17 23 22,2

20 Greek Catholic Theological Faculty University of Prešov 50 32 - 6 16 21,0

21 Faculty of Arts University of St. Cyril and Methodius 46 39 5 - 10 20,1

22 Faculty of Philology Matej Bel University 47 34 - - 4 16,9

MED




1 Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 85 86 40 100 82 78,8

2 Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 85 81 100 46 81 78,5

3 Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 96 76 41 77 28 63,6

4 Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 54 48 67 24 54,4

NAT




1 Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and

Informatics Comenius University

96 62 97 81 77 82,6

2 Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 83 87 53 94 88 81,2

3 Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 89 61 62 60 56 65,4


5 Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical university in Zvolen 70 69 9 66 17 46,2

6 Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 53 51 13 41 13 34,1

7 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 50 66 1 17 6 27,8

8 Faculty of Natural Sciences University of St. Cyril and Methodius 68 37 8 - 7 23,9

150

Table 37: Assessment of faculties within Frascati groups (all criteria; continued) SOC




1 Faculty of Health Care and Social Work University of Trnava 96 42 100 79 7 64,7

2 Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 71 73 11 60 30 48,8

3 Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 92 44 12 40 49 47,5

4 Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 70 51 10 14 85 46,0

5 Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 76 75 3 32 35 44,2


University of Žilina 75 67 - 35 22 39,7

7 Faculty of Education University of Trnava 76 30 27 14 48 39,0

8 Faculty of Commerce University of Economics 72 50 12 28 27 37,8


Slovak University of Agriculture 57 46 14 29 42 37,7

10 Faculty of Law University of Trnava 82 42 - 25 38 37,4

11 Faculty of Education Comenius University 68 44 2 29 42 37,0

12 Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 88 45 8 9 29 35,6

13 Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 81 38 10 20 25 34,8

14 Faculty of Management Comenius University 59 75 3 29 6 34,4

15 Faculty of Law Comenius University 68 62 1 19 19 33,7

16 Faculty of Education University of Prešov 56 36 - 26 47 33,0

17 Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Constantine the Philosopher University 58 52 5 11 38 32,9

18 Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 61 36 3 20 43 32,6

19 Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 63 35 - 25 36 31,8

20 Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 73 36 4 16 18 29,5

21 Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 72 44 7 20 4 29,4

22 Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 67 35 10 20 13 29,1

23 Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 71 31 8 23 11 28,9


Matej Bel University 75 42 5 15 3 28,0

25 Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 39 4 9 9 27,9

26 Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 49 43 0 - 44 27,3

27 Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 61 35 5 - 33 27,1

28 Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 64 45 - 10 3 24,4

29 Pedagogical faculty Catholic University 55 30 4 13 17 23,8

30 Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of St. Cyril and Methodius 52 50 - - 10 22,3

31 Faculty of Health Care University of Prešov 42 35 1 - 3 16,3

TECH




1 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak Technical University 99 48 100 82 84 82,5


Slovak Technical University 78 57 38 51 82 61,1

3 Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 76 35 19 69 43 48,4

4 Faculty of Architecture Slovak Technical University 72 74 1 48 40 47,1

5 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 71 29 4 71 59 46,9

6 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak Technical University 72 57 19 44 41 46,6



8 Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 64 31 27 46 47 43,0

9 Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak Technical University 68 37 20 44 37 41,3

10 Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology

Technical university in Zvolen 71 39 2 49 38 39,9



12 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 60 35 5 53 41 38,8

13 Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 72 47 12 36 26 38,3

14 Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 61 38 3 30 50 36,6

15 Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 68 45 4 39 19 35,2

16 Faculty of Agricultural Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 68 47 2 36 16 33,8

17 Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 67 34 0 41 22 32,9

18 Faculty of Management and Informatics University of Žilina 52 36 6 46 21 32,2

19 Faculty of Special Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 67 45 - 19 28 31,8

20 Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak Technical University 58 38 6 30 20 30,4

21 Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 58 36 - 23 12 25,9

22 Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 50 35 4 - 9 19,5

151

9 Aggregate assessment of universities As mentioned above, ARRA abandoned the assessment of universities as a whole. It is more accurate to measure the performance of universities in particular areas according to the performance achieved by the faculties that operate in the given area. For example, the performance of the Comenius University in the area of NAT is determined by

the performance of its two faculties that fall into this group (the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics and the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences). The results are shown in Table 38.

Table 38: Assessment of universities within Frascati groups (comparison)

AGRO teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 University of Veterinary Medicine 94 90 88 100 85 100 61 63 81 65 81,6 83,4 2 2 Slovak University of Agriculture 63 67 59 79 31 16 64 59 62 45 55,6 53,4 3 3 Technical university in Zvolen 72 79 56 89 31 22 63 68 39 58 52,3 63,2

HUM teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts 77 68 58 99 0 0 56 58 19 16 41,7 48,2

2 2 University of Trnava 62 67 53 79 11 14 53 66 21 33 39,9 51,6 3 3 Academy of Fine Arts and Design 72 62 84 95 0 0 29 43 14 61 39,6 52,3 4 4 Comenius University 60 61 45 88 28 39 43 24 7 26 36,7 47,5 5 5 Technical University of Košice 49 45 59 93 0 0 0 0 75 0 36,6 27,6 6 6 University of Prešov 52 53 37 81 30 32 31 33 34 31 36,6 46,2 7 7 Academy of Arts 78 69 51 91 0 0 0 0 11 27 28,2 37,4

8 8 Constantine the Philosopher University 43 44 44 70 0 2 26 43 10 35 24,8 38,9

9 9 Catholic University 43 53 23 61 5 2 17 30 23 9 22,2 30,9 10 10 Matej Bel University 44 43 29 63 5 4 14 15 17 19 22,0 28,8

11 11 University of St. Cyril and Methodius 46 52 39 61 5 3 0 0 10 22 20,1 27,7

MED teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 Comenius University 89 75 81 86 60 57 74 74 64 64 73,6 71,1 2 2 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 78 66 54 88 48 44 67 90 24 52 54,4 67,7

NAT teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 Comenius University 90 87 75 60 75 72 87 86 83 83 81,9 77,6 2 2 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 89 81 61 50 62 80 60 53 56 71 65,4 67,2


4 4 Technical university in Zvolen 70 65 69 80 9 9 66 58 17 30 46,2 48,5 5 5 Matej Bel University 53 59 51 84 13 9 41 44 13 9 34,1 40,9 6 6 University of Žilina 50 66 66 100 1 1 17 12 6 6 27,8 37,1


SOC teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 University of Trnava 84 79 38 68 42 35 39 49 31 24 47,0 51,2 2 2 Technical University of Košice 70 55 51 100 10 9 14 33 85 48 46,0 49,0 3 3 Slovak University of Agriculture 67 69 61 82 8 2 31 34 38 27 40,9 43,0 4 4 University of Žilina 75 54 67 72 0 1 35 36 22 64 39,7 45,2 5 5 Comenius University 75 64 54 82 5 2 25 31 29 29 37,6 41,5 6 6 University of Economics 72 60 44 67 9 6 28 29 21 21 34,8 36,6


8 8 Matej Bel University 68 61 42 70 4 1 16 16 13 7 28,6 31,1 9 9 Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 58 37 70 5 2 4 1 21 23 27,5 30,7

10 10 Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 49 53 43 70 0 0 0 0 44 15 27,3 27,6

11 11 University of Prešov 49 56 36 82 0 0 13 18 25 22 24,6 35,5 12 12 Catholic University 55 62 30 72 4 1 13 15 17 22 23,8 34,4


152

TECH teachers and



2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

1 1 Slovak Technical University 74 71 52 66 31 22 50 56 51 44 51,5 51,9 2 2 Technical University of Košice 66 61 43 84 11 5 50 50 37 38 41,3 47,5 3 3 Technical university in Zvolen 71 70 39 71 2 1 49 51 38 84 39,9 55,5 4 4 University of Žilina 63 63 36 59 3 1 44 50 27 27 34,6 40,1 5 5 Slovak University of Agriculture 68 68 47 76 2 1 36 38 16 28 33,8 42,0

6 6 Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 60 59 37 66 10 6 22 36 28 34 31,4 40,1

In other words, for example, Comenius University occupies the fourth place among universities with humanities-oriented faculties for the performance of its humanities-oriented faculties, the fifth place among thirteen universities in the SOC area, and two first places – in MED among two universities and in NAT among eight universities.

Shifts in the ranking are caused particularly by the last group of criteria, i.e., the grants, within which also foreign grants and state programme grants are assessed.

This caused a change in ranking within the AGRO group, the decrease of VŠMU’s position from 1st to 3rd in the HUM group and of Technical University in Zvolen similarly in the TECH group.

UKF improved within the NAT group thanks to the increased interest in study at the expense of UMB or Žilina University, where the interest – compared to other institutions within the group – dropped in comparison to the last year. What is significant again is the last position of UCM in all groups of faculties, in which it is represented (last year, it took two last places and one last but one place.

10 Conclusion There can be no doubt that as in the past, universities are in the present the heart and the driving force for the development of the knowledge based society. They are irreplaceable for the prosperity and positive development of the fast changing world. There are however, two requirements for them to carry out their tasks: that their free spirit is preserved and that the education and research that they provide and carry out have a high level of quality. This study may also encourage universities and their faculties to think about their performance and to try to find ways to improve.

Once again we are happy to be able to conclude that in comparison to 2004, nearly all Slovak public

university faculties, almost in all parameters, improved their performance during the year. This has been undoubtedly contributed to by the improving economic situation of the country, in certain cases also by the ongoing international evaluation of Slovak higher education institutions in cooperation with the European University Association (EUA). The ARRA study is trying to reflect and help monitor this improving development. We can only hope now that the situation will continue to improve. It would be very daring to believe that two assessments are sufficient to make substantial conclusions on the development trends. However, it is undoubted that if such assessment continues to be conducted for a longer period of time, it will be easier to see as to which direction the Slovak higher education is taking.

153

11 About the authors and the report The authors of the report are the members and fellow workers of the Academic Ranking and Rating Agency. The data was prepared and processed by doc. Neva Pišútová and Prof. Vladimír Kellö. The authors of the text part are Prof. Ferdinand Devínsky, Prof. Ján Pišút, Juraj Barta, Renáta Králiková and Michal Fedák. The preparation of the report was contributed to, among others, by Prof. Ivan Štich, Zuzana Lamošová and Katarína Tichá Hudecová.

ARRA is the first independent institution to decide to provide the public with regular reports on the quality of individual universities in Slovakia and information comparing them with each other. ARRA provides this information by fulfilling its objectives and abiding by quality evaluation procedures agreed in advance.

Its objectives include:

• providing the public with information on the quality of individual higher education institutions in Slovakia and of the SAV,

• introducing a method of assessing the quality of education provided by higher education institutions in Slovakia,

• creating an independent evaluation of the quality of education provided in individual study programs and fields of study in higher education institutions in Slovakia,

• regularly ranking higher education institutions, the affiliated faculties and sections by the quality of the education they provide and the quality of their research and development (“ranking”),

• assigning higher education institutions a rating based on the level of quality of their individual activities,

• attempting to stimulate competition among individual universities and their faculties.

The role of the agency is not to replace the duties and tasks of the SR Government Accreditation Commission.

11.1 People at ARRA

11.1.1 Board of Advisors i. Prof. Ing. Ivan Štich, PhD. (Chairman), professor

at the STU Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Bratislava

ii. Prof. RNDr. Pavol Brunovský, DrSc., professor of mathematics at the UK Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Bratislava, the founder of the study of economic and financial mathematics at the FMFI UK

iii. Dr. h. c. Prof. Ing. Ferdinand Devínsky, DrSc., professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at the UK Faculty of Pharmacy, president of Comenius University (1997 – 2003), Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Education, Science, Youth and Sports, Culture, and Media (2002 – 2006), Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for Education, Youth, Science and Sports (since 2006)

iv. doc. RNDr. Vladimír Ferák, CSc., associate professor of genetics at the UK Faculty of Natural Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences (1997 – 2003)

v. Prof. Július Horváth, PhD., professor of economics at the Central European University in Budapest (CEU) and at the UK Faculty of Socio-Economic Sciences

vi. Prof. RNDr. Juraj Hromkovič, DrSc., professor of informatics at the Aachen Technical University in the Federal Republic of Germany

vii. Prof. ThDr. Jozef Jarab, PhD., professor of theology at the UK Faculty of Roman Catholic Theology

viii. doc. JUDr. Peter Kresák, CSc., associate professor at the UK Faculty of Law, Vice-President of Comenius University (1997 – 2003), deputy of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (1998 – 2002)

ix. PhDr. Dušan Kováč, DrSc. (invited to BoA’s sessions), historian, Deputy Chairman of the SAV

x. Prof. PhDr. Mária Kusá, CSc., professor of Russian and Lithuanian Literature and Translatology at the UK Faculty of Philosophy, Bratislava

xi. Prof. RNDr. Ján Pišút, DrSc. professor of physics at the Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Minister of Education (1990 – 1992)

xii. Prof. Ing. arch. Štefan Šlachta, CSc. professor of architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts in Bratislava, President of the VŠVU, deputy of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (1998 – 2002), Head Architect of the Capital of the Slovak Republic – Bratislava

xiii. Prof. Ing. Ivan Wilhelm, CSc., professor of physics at the Charles University in Prague, president of Charles University (2000 – 2006)

11.1.2 Board of Trustees i. Jozef Kollár, former Chairman of the Board of

Ľudová banka (Chairman) ii. Radoslav Baťo, editor in chief, Trend weekly iii. Imrich Béreš, Chairman of the Board, Prvá

stavebná sporiteľňa iv. Martin Fronc, MP of the National Council of the

Slovak Republic, Minister of Education (2002 – 2006)

v. Juraj Kotian, Head Economist of Slovenská sporiteľňa

vi. Pavol Lančarič, General Manager, Orange Slovensko

vii. Ivan Mikloš, MP of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, Deputy Prime Minister (1998 – 2006) and Minister of Finance (2002 – 2006)

viii. Jaroslav Pilát, Executive director of M.E.S.A.10 ix. Andrej Salner, Slovak Governance Institute (SGI) x. Ján Tóth, Head Economist, ING Bank

11.1.3 ARRA members i. Juraj Barta, Chairman ii. Ferdinand Devínsky iii. Michal Fedák iv. Ján Pišút

11.1.4 ARRA Secretariat Zuzana Lamošová, Executive Director Katarína Tichá Hudecová, Project Manager

Date post:	17-Jan-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arraweb
View:	1,662 times
Download:	8 times

Assessment HEI 2006

Documents