Chapter 3
Higher education indicators: An exercise in interpretation

https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(90)90006-TGet rights and content

Abstract

Current political and economic imperatives imply that policy decisions in the field of higher education can no longer be made on the basis of the limited information — mainly input measures — available at present. Performance indicators are needed, covering costs and participation rates as well as progress and graduation rates. Practices and progress vary in the countries examined (among which Australia, the United States, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom), but the difficulties of establishing meaningful reference points and guidelines for proper use are widely recognised. Nevertheless, experience has shown that if the debate is open and the objectives agreed upon, a fruitful dialogue can take place.

References (14)

  • ABS

    Social indicators

    (1984)
  • J. Ainley

    Patterns of retention in Australian Government schools

    (1985)
  • D. Anderson et al.

    Access to privilege

    (1983)
  • P. Bourke

    Quality measures in universities

    (1986)
  • J. Dawkings

    Higher education: a policy discussion paper

    (1987)
  • R.J. In't Veld

    Performance indicators in higher education in the Netherlands

    Paper presented at OECD International Conference on Indicators, Washington, DC

    (1987)
  • Jarrett

    Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities

    (1985)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (6)

View full text