felvi.hu


Methodology of Felvi rankings 2009

2009.10.12

General principles of ranking

A primary responsibility of the Educatio Public Service non-profit company - National Higher Education Information Centre is to provide wide ranging information for applicants to universities and colleges, higher education institutions, employers and other actors in the higher education sector. An important element of this is the preparation of ranking lists comparing higher education institutions acknowledged by the state by a number of indicators.

Based on the unified methodological principles developed jointly with the Universitas Press Higher Education Research Atelier in 2000, and considering the international system of indicators in higher education, the range of aspects used in the analyses is continuously widening. The two most important principles of the rankings are the use of multiple aspects and a profound and valid methodology.

Multiple aspects: the principle is that there is no absolute best or worst institution. It is thus best to compare universities and colleges on the basis of all the relevant and measurable indicators possible.

Profound and valid methodology: every institutional ranking should be professionally well grounded, accurate and authentic with respect to data provision, statistics and research methodology. The full methodology of preparing the rankings is published by those who carry out the study.

Data resources

The Felvi rankings published in our Diploma 2009 volume rely on the following database:

Data types

Data obtained from institutional data provision. Hungarian higher education institutions provide statistical data to the Ministry of Education and Culture (OKM) and the National Higher Education Information Centre (OFIK) on the number of instructors, the staff of the given institution, the number and composition of their students, and the infrastructure. The rankings are based on the full database of the OKM and the OFIK accumulated in this way.

Data used Description of data (year, academic year)
Number of full time students per instructors with academic qualifications Number of full time students per instructors with academic qualifications (2007/2008)
Number of instructors with academic qualifications Number of full time instructors with academic qualifications (holding a candidate, PhD, or DLA degree)
Proportion of instructors with academic qualifications Proportion of full-time instructors with academic qualifications (holding a candidate, PhD, or DLA degree) in faculty (2007/2008)
Number of students obtaining a PhD a degree Total number of students who have obtained a Doctoral (PhD, DLA) degree in all academic schedules (2007)
(Highlighted in the case of colleges)
Number of PhD students Number of students participating in Doctoral (PhD, DLA) programs in all academic schedules (2007/2008)
(Highlighted in the case of colleges)
Doctors of the Academy among instructors Proportion of Doctors of the Academy in total full time faculty (2007/2008)
Habilitated instructors Proportion of habilitated doctors in total full time faculty (2007/2008)
Number of students Number of students in full time Bachelor level and unified programs (BUF)

Application and admission data. The OFIK totalizes the data of applicants and admissions to Hungarian higher education institutions each year: the chosen institutions as indicated in the application forms, the chosen programs and the training type and schedule, the type of support, the personal data of applicants (age, citizenship, sex, permanent residence, year of taking the secondary school final examination, other higher education studies, language examination, type and specialisation of secondary school issuing the certificate, etc.). In preparing the relevant rankings, we always count the number of students applying to the given institution/program/field of study in the first place

Data used Description of data (year, academic year)
Applicants Number of applicants to full time state financed places in Bachelor programs (BUFS) naming the institution in the first place (2008)
BUFS-admitted Number of BUFS students admitted to the first place (2008)
Rate of applicants admitted Proportion of BUFS students admitted to the first place to total number of BUFS applicants in the first place (2008)
Average scores of admitted students (admission score) Arithmetic mean of the scores of admitted BUFS students applying in the first place (2008)
Regional position * Distribution of admitted BUFS students applying in the first place by permanent residence, in three categories: 1. micro region of the given settlement, 2. own county and neighbouring counties, 3. rest of the country (2008)
Places achieved in the National Secondary School Competition (OKTV) Outstanding achievements - granted extra admission scores - in the National Secondary School Competition among admitted BUFS students applying in the first place (2008)
Came from the best secondary school Students obtaining their secondary school certificates in one of the 20 most successful secondary schools in admissions, admitted to BFS places named in the first place (2008)
Holds language certificate Ratio of admitted BFS students applying in the first place to total number of BFS applicants applying in the first place (2008)

*Regional position. The criterion by catchment area is a derived variable with three values. The first category comprises applicants from the settlement of the place of education (the given faculty of the educational institution) and the micro region where the settlement is situated.

The second category represents a wider catchment area of the higher education institution, including the county of the place of education and those of its immediate neighbours from which a significantly higher number of applicants arrived to the institution than from other counties. Thus there are generally three (less often two) such counties belonging to each place of education examined. In many cases the boundaries of the second category coincide with the actual boundaries of the region, but this is not always true, because if the place of education is near the border of the region, the second catchment area will be inter-regional. The third category comprises applicants who come from the rest of the country, that is, those who were not included in the first two.

Categories are slightly different for institutions in the capital city. In this case, the first category is Budapest, and the second is the rest of the Central Hungarian region, that is, Pest county. A special exception is the educational site of the Pázmány Péter Catholic University (PPKE) in Piliscsaba: for the faculties that belong here, we have included Budapest as well as the micro region of Pilisvörösvár in the first category. This was necessary because, on one hand, the proximity of the capital city is decisive, and, on the other hand, Piliscsaba and the micro region of Pilisvörösvár would have been disproportionately small taken in itself.

In the case of the educational institutions, we always considered the headquarters of the given faculty rather than the settlement of the official central headquarters of the university or college. In the case of the Kodolányi János College, our data were not suitable for distinguishing students applying to the educational sites of Budapest and Székesfehérvár, so the college is not represented in the figures for the Humanities, Economic Studies and Social Studies educational fields by regional catchment areas.

Applicants to fee-paying programs. This was the first year when we examined the following data relating to students applying to fee-paying places in the first place separately for the four areas of study (Economics, Law and Public Administration, Medicine and Health Sciences, Social Sciences):

Data used Description of data (year, academic year)
Applicants Number of applicants to tuition paying full time Bachelor level and unified programs (BUFT) naming
Admission ratio Ratio of BUFT students admitted to the first place to total number of students applying to BUFT places in the first place (2008)
Average scores of admitted students (admission scores) Arithmetic mean of scores achieved by BUFT admissions to the first place (2008)
Places achieved in the National Secondary School Competition (OKTV) Outstanding achievements - granted extra admission scores - in the National Secondary School Competition among admitted BUFT students applying in the first place (2008)
Came from the best secondary schools Students obtaining their secondary school certificates in one of the 20 most successful secondary schools in admissions, admitted to BUFT places in the first place (2008)
Holds language certificate Ratio of admitted BUFT students applying in the first place to total number of BUFT applicants applying in the first place (2008)
Applicants Number of applicants to tuition paying full time Bachelor level and unified programs (BUFT) naming

 

OTDT data. The Council for National Scientific Students' Circles (OTDT) keeps regular records of the results of scientific students' circles competitions. Upon the request of the OFIK, they provide access to the related totalised data by institutions and faculties.

Data used Description of data (year, academic year)
Number of full time students per places achieved at the OTDK competitions * Number of full time students at Bachelor level or unified programs at the given faculty by places 1-3 achieved at OTDK competitions (2007)


*Organised biannually

Data from Representative Questionnaire Studies

Precedents. The whole research program launched in 2000 upon the initiative of the Universitas Press Higher Education Research Atelier, supported by the OFIK. National representative questionnaire studies commissioned by the OFIK were implemented by the Mimikri Opinion and Market Research Ltd., the Universitas Press Higher Education Research Atelier and the JELTÁRS Contemporary Social Research Workshop in the spring of 2001, involving university students in Hungary (4870 persons); in the spring of 2005, involving college students in Hungary (6850 persons);in the spring of 2006 and 2007, involving students studying at 9 and 7 Bachelor or unified programs respectively. The full description of the results is available in the Egyetemek mérlegen (Universities on the Scales, 2003) and the Felvi Rangsor 2006 (Admissions Rankings 2006) publications of the OFIK, and the methodologies are described in detail in the same publications, as well as in the HVG Diploma 2007 and the 2008 Felvi-rangsorok (2008 Admissions Rankings) publications and on the OFIK homepage (www.felvi.hu).

Student opinion survey by programs. A survey involving university and college students of Hungarian citizenship applying to full time programs in the spring of 2006 and 2007 (5158 and 5450 respectively), based on personal questioning, standard questionnaires and stratified sampling. The partial samples by faculties generally comprised 90-100 students, or 50-75 students in the case of faculties with low students numbers. Researchers took representative samples at the faculties by the sex of students, the chosen program and the student numbers in each year of study. The samples questioned were built up in accordance with the official higher education statistical guide of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Sample error was between 0-1,5 per cent (national sample), and 0-9 per cent (samples by institutions).

Surveyed Bachelor programs. In 2006, survey was conducted in faculties where the traditional programs matching the current Bachelor program had been provided for several years, whereas in 2007 it was carried out in every institution where full time programs were launched in the given disciplines in the 2007/2008 academic year. The following Bachelor programs and unified programs were included in the survey:

In addition to the above, another 7 Bachelor programs were included in the survey, for which we only collected data by questionnaire in the faculty attracting the highest number of applicants by program, rather than all the institutions offering the program. Accordingly, no rankings for institutions were prepared here: analyses related to the given faculty only. Programs and faculties surveyed in 2007 were the following: Civil Engineering (BME-ÉÖK), Military Management (ZMNE-KHK), Environmental Engineering (BMF-RKK), Mechatronics Engineering (BME-GÉK), Recreation and Health Improvement Management (SE-TSK), Elementary school Teacher (ELTE-TÓFK), Textile Designer (MOME).

The questionnaire. Questions covered the aspects by which students chose their institutions, the evaluation of the program and the institution, further plans for higher education studies or retraining, and job plans and expectations upon completing the program. The evaluation of the programs and institutions was structured as follows: the standards of education, the marketability of the diploma nationally and internationally; opportunities for self-study and professional promotion within the institution; identification with the institution; the atmosphere of the institution and cultural/sports opportunities within the institution; the level of the educational infrastructure of the institution, further institutional services.

Students were asked about their opinion of their own institutions, except for a few comparative questions where respondents had to characterise their own faculties as compared to other institutions.

Data used Description of data (year, academic year)
Difficulty of admission to the institution (as compared to other faculties)
Scores range from 1 to 5, the result is the arithmetic mean of the scores granted
(2006, 2007)
Difficulty of studies (as compared to other faculties)
Standards of education
Acknowledgement of diploma nationally (as compared to other faculties)
Acknowledgement of diploma internationally (as compared to other faculties)
Support by the institution in finding employment after graduation
Helpfulness of instructors (how much they help students in studies, professional work and promotion)
Information provided to students in academic matters
Cultural opportunities
Sports opportunities
Quality of the library
Provision of computers
Standards of theoretical education
Applicability of technical knowledge
Standards of professional practice
Job opportunities during the program
Links of the institution with labour market actors
Presence of renowned representatives of the given field in education
Participation of students in professional conferences
Scores range from 1 to 5, the result is the arithmetic mean of the scores granted
(2006, 2007)
(Only total scores for Bachelor programs are included, without breakdown by faculties.
This aspect is not suitable for generating ranking lists!
)
Satisfaction of personal professional interest
Activity of students' self-government
Eating opportunities within the institution
Institutional democracy
Atmosphere of the institution in general
Dormitory standards
Opportunity to get involved in research
Instructor-student relations
Foreign partial program opportunities
Professional self-study opportunities
Equipment of classrooms
Would you apply to the same institution again?
Proportion of 'yes's in total number of respondents
Do you intend to find employment in the field of study or a closely related job after graduation?
Proportion of 'yes's in total number of respondents
This aspect is not suitable for generating ranking lists!
Do you consider finding employment in the field likely or certain?
Faculty representing the highest standards
Proportion of respondents judging the given institution as the best one among total number of respondents (only counting responses from students attending other institutions)

 

Contributors to developing the ranking lists and the related research. The research program was led by György Fábri PhD. Data were processed by Tamás Horváth (professional coordination, data analysis), István Fábri (professional coordination, data analysis), Csilla Pogány (sampling, methodology, data processing), Katalin Füleki (data analysis, methodology), Szabolcs Fodor (data processing), Benedek Kovács (data processing), Georgina Kasza (data analysis), László Kiss (data analysis, data checking) sociologists and Paszkál Kiss PhD (data analysis) social psychologist. Data checking: Anna Bárdos, Irén Buzás. OFIK - technical project leader: Lilla Szép. Students were polled by the interviewer network of the Mimikri Opinion and Market Research Institution.