Assessment hei 2009

Report

Assessment of higher education institutions and their faculties
(2009)

© ARRA, Bratislava 2009

„This work was supported by the Research and Development Support
Agency under contract No APVV-0384-07”

The work of ARRA is supported by:

The partner of ARRA is

-2-
ARRA, Bárdošova 2/A, 831 01 Bratislava, ID No: 30857091, Reg. No. VVS/1-900/90-245 03 phone: +421 2 5443 2246 www.arra.sk
E-mail: arra@arra.sk Bank details: Slovenská sporiteľňa, A/C No: 0178751805/0900

The authors of the Report would like to thank the members of the Board of Advisors of
ARRA, in particular the chairperson Prof. Štich, as well as the members of the Board of Trustees
(in particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollár) for their comments, discussions, analyses and reviews.

The criteria and the methodology used have been adopted after several modifications from
previous ARRA reports1. Discussions with Don Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the World
Bank arranged for ARRA, as well as with several other members of the academic community in
Slovakia and abroad, contributed significantly to criteria selection and dividing the faculties into
eleven groups.

1
http://www.arra.sk/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=15&MMN_position=11:5

-3-

1. About ARRA

ARRA is an independent civil association established in 2004 by Prof. Ferdinand
Devínsky, Prof. Ján Pišút, Renáta Králiková, and Juraj Barta with the objective of assessing the
quality of Slovak higher education institutions. In the course of its existence, it prepared and
published five reports assessing Slovak higher education institutions. In its beginnings, ARRA was
assisted by dr. Don Thornhill and dr. Lewis Purser, World Bank experts. After their departure,
ARRA continued its international collaboration and, in 2009, was at the birth of a global
organisation of ranking agencies, the IREG Observatory (International Ranking Expert Group
Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence) as its founding member. Prof. Ferdinand
Devínsky was elected a member of the Executive Committee of the IREG Observatory.2

ARRA is also engaged in other activities whose common denominator is the quality of
higher education institutions in Slovakia. Throughout the last year, projects were implemented
such as the Top Scientists project (identification of Slovak scientists comparable to world’s leading
scholars), a study mapping the interest of employers in higher education institution graduates, a
comparison of the scientific performance of Czech and Slovak higher education institutions, etc.

The primary objective of ARRA is to stimulate positive changes in Slovak higher
education.

2. Authors

• Mgr. Juraj Barta

• Dr. h. c. prof. Ing. Ferdinand Devínsky, DrSc.

• Mgr. Michal Fedák

• doc. RNDr. Ivan Ostrovský, CSc.

• Mgr. Mária Páleníková

• prof. RNDr. Ján Pišút, DrSc.

• Mgr. Michal Považan

• prof. Ing. Ivan Štich, DrSc.

• Mgr. Katarína Tichá Hudecová

2
More at
http://www.arra.sk/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=60

-4-

3. Summary

ARRA presents the fifth assessment of Slovak higher education institutions which relies on
a detailed analysis of publicly available and verifiable data on their scientific activity, teachers,
numbers of students, interest in study, grants, and PhD studies.

The ARRA ranking has undergone significant changes this year. Some criteria were
dropped, some were replaced, but the most obvious change is that in the division of faculties into
individual groups. The previously used groups HUM and SPOL were divided into smaller, more
compact groups which better reflect the focus of individual faculties and are more comprehensible
for the user. This approach resulted in the creation of the groups of economic sciences, sciences of
law, theological sciences, sciences of education, philosophical sciences, arts, and other social
sciences.

In the new groups, the leaders among faculties of similar specialisation are more visible.
For example, Comenius University’s Faculty of Law has a moderate lead among faculties of law;
Košice University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics leads the group of economic faculties;
faculties of education have a leader in the Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, etc.

Looking back at five years of ARRA assessments, it can be concluded that the general level
of higher education institutions and their faculties in Slovakia is stagnating or slightly increasing. It
is not possible to determine the trend as to whether stagnation or slow growth is involved. After an
improvement in one year, the results of several institutions fall back to previous levels. The
development is fluctuating and unclear. Examples include Trnava University whose performance,
following continuous growth, culminated in 2007 and whose results have been deteriorating ever
since. Nevertheless, there are several faculties that are “traditionally” improving. These include, on
the one hand, established institutions such as Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics,
Physics and Informatics, the Faculty of Medicine of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice or
Zvolen University of Technology’s Faculty of Forestry, but also newer schools on the other hand,
for example, Catholic University’s Faculty of Philosophy or Comenius University’s Faculty of
Social and Economic Sciences.

A trend that can be revealed at least in some of the groups (e.g., PRIR, TECH) is the
continuing clear division between achievements of faculties established before 1989 and those
founded after 1989. The “younger” faculties, despite the relatively long period of time, failed to
come closer to the “older” ones in their results indicators.

-5-

Cases of inappropriate massification of higher education still occur. The case of the Faculty
of Social and Economic Relations of Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín involves as many as
about 800 students per one professor and associate professor. Other faculties, particularly those of
social sciences and humanities, suffer from this problem too but they are nowhere near the figures
of the Trenčín faculty.

Noteworthy is the case of Košice University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics which
has long been the leader among faculties of economic sciences. The faculty is characterised by its
ability to obtain relatively significant funds for science from foreign grants which gave it an
opportunity to be completely independent of the Slovak grant system. Presently, the faculty does
not have a single grant from the Slovak Ministry of Education agencies.

-6-

Table of Contents

1. About ARRA......................................................................................................... 4
2. Authors ................................................................................................................ 4
3. Summary .............................................................................................................. 5
4. Introduction – changes, additions, findings ................................................................... 8
5. Brief overview of the assessment methodology ........................................................... 10
6. Main results of the assessment ................................................................................. 13
6.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group ......................................................................13
6.2 Universities and faculties of the MED group ........................................................................15
6.3 Universities and faculties of the TEOL group .......................................................................18
6.4 Universities and faculties of the FIL group ...........................................................................21
6.5 Universities and faculties of the UMEL group ......................................................................23
6.6 Universities and faculties of the PRIR group ........................................................................25
6.7 Universities and faculties of the EKON group ......................................................................27
6.8 Universities and faculties of the PRAV group.......................................................................29
6.9 Universities and faculties of the PED group ..........................................................................31
6.10 Universities and faculties of the TECH group .......................................................................34
6.11 Universities and faculties of the OTHER group ....................................................................37
7. Trends in the assessment of individual faculties of higher education institutions ................. 38
8. Development of publication output ........................................................................... 47
9. List of acronyms used ............................................................................................ 54

-7-

4. Introduction – changes, additions, findings

ARRA is submitting the fifth Report assessing higher education institutions and their
faculties. The assessment was made on the basis of information for 2008. Thanks to already five
continuous years of assessment, the focus of this Report includes the trends in the quality of the
Slovak higher education institutions.

Since the very formation of ARRA, there were discussions about the assessment of
humanities and social science faculties. Many pedagogues and scientists from these areas were
pointing out that they were discriminated against in their faculties’ quality assessment, as
information on publications was accepted exclusively from WoK. Again, ARRA assesses social
science and humanities faculties using a slightly modified methodology, taking into consideration,
in criterion VV1, also the publications of authors from these faculties that are not covered by
international databases. This modification does not affect their ranking significantly, but it enables
distinguishing among faculties with zero records in international databases. ARRA continues to
work on enhancements to an assessment method for social science and humanities faculties, but
this is a very challenging task that will require more time and discussions. Publication and citation
traditions of other faculty groups are such that the WoK database sufficiently covers the quality
and quantity of their publications and citations, therefore ARRA uses only data from the WoK
database.

Data sources used by ARRA include, in addition to the WoK database, information
published in reprints of the Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education, in annual reports
on the state of higher education issued by the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic, and
from the register of publication activity.

As in the previous year, the ARRA Report is divided into two parts, particularly to
facilitate its readability. The first part includes an overview of the most important results of this
year’s assessment as well as news and additional views described above. In the second part, there
are detailed assessments of individual groups, details of the methodology used, and other
appendices intended primarily for the professional public.

The most substantial change is the omission of certain criteria concerning scientific results.
This involves the criteria describing the number of publications cited 5 and 25 times per creative
worker and the criterion measuring the number of PhD students per professor and per student.
After expert discussion, these were replaced with a new criterion which, in the opinion of experts
from the academic community, better describes the qualitative and quantitative aspect of higher

-8-

education institutions. The new criterion is the proportion of PhD graduates and first-year PhD
students for three consecutive years.

After several years of discussions, the HUM and SPOL groups were divided into smaller,
more orientation-consistent groups PRAV, PED, EKON, TEOL, FIL, UMEL, OTHER. This
division was mainly motivated by a desire to form more consistent groups which will be clearer
and will have a higher informative value for the reader.

Table 1: List of criteria used in the Report

Area Code Description

VV1 Number of publications in the WoK for the years 1999 –
2008 per creative worker
VV1a Number of different journal publications outside of WoK
for 2008 (for SPOL and HUM faculties)
VV1b Number of different book publications outside of WoK for
2008 (for SPOL and HUM faculties)
VV2 Number of citations in the WoK for the years 1999 – 2008
per creative worker
VV2a Number of citations in the WoK per publication in the WoK
Science and research

for the years 1999 – 2008

VV4a
Proportion of PhD graduates and first-year PhD students
for three consecutive years
Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2006 – 2008
VV5 in proportion to the number of professors and associate
professors
The number of full-time PhD students divided by the
VV6 number of bachelor’s and master’s degree full-time
students
VV7 Grant funding from the KEGA and VEGA agencies per
creative worker in 2008
VV8 Grant funding from the APVV agency per creative worker
in 2008
VV9
Funding from foreign grants per creative worker in 2008
VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per creative worker in
2008
Educatio

SV1 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time
students per teacher in 2008
n

SV2 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time
students per professor or associate professor in 2008

-9-

SV3 Proportion of professors, associate professors and other
teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers
Proportion of professors and associate professors to all
SV4
teachers
SV6 Ratio of the actual number of applications received to the
planned number in 2008
SV7 Ratio of registered and admitted students in 2008
SV8 Proportion of foreign students

5. Brief overview of the assessment methodology

The procedure that ARRA used in assessing Slovak universities in 2009 is essentially
similar to that used in 2008.

Similarly as in the previous assessments, the higher education institution assessment
procedure consists in the following steps in this Report:

• 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 the particular indicator (indicators are arranged into groups and
each group of indicators gained a certain number of points),3

• the division of faculties into twelve groups 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 is based on average points score in individual groups of indicators),

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

The Report divides faculties into the following groups:

• natural sciences,

• engineering and technology,

• medical sciences,

• agricultural sciences,

3
In 2007 and in 2009 again, the indicators used were slightly modified with the objective to describe the quality of
higher education institutions under assessment as accurately as possible.

- 10 -

• sciences of law,

• economic sciences,

• pedagogical sciences,

• theological sciences,

• philosophical sciences,

• arts,

• other sciences.

ARRA does not prepare a cumulative table ranking all Slovak higher education institutions.
It is also true that the quality of a higher education institution is determined by the quality of its
faculties (except for the University of Veterinary Medicine the Academy of Fine Arts, and St.
Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences, which have no faculties and are therefore
assessed as a whole). ARRA, therefore, offers a ranking of higher education institutions in groups
of subjects on the basis of the prevailing orientation.

ARRA assigns compensation points in certain criteria to faculties existing less than 10
years. These are criteria where parameter value depends on time (ten years’ period is examined,
while faculties exist for less than ten years). A list of faculties with modified assessment including
the compensation factors for 2007 and 2008 is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Faculties assigned compensation points in the 2009 Report
Year
Compensati
University Faculty establishe
on factor
d
Comenius University Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences 2002 - 10/7
University of Prešov Faculty of Healthcare 2002 - 10/7
Catholic University Faculty of Philosophy 2002 - 10/7
Catholic University Faculty of Theology 2003 - 10/6
St. Elizabeth University St. Elizabeth University 2003 - 10/6
Catholic University Faculty of Education 2002 - 10/7
Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare 2002 - 10/7
University of Žilina Faculty of Special Engineering 2002 - 10/7
University of Economics Faculty of International Relations 2000 - 10/9
Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences 2002 - 10/7
Faculty of European Studies and Regional
Slovak University of Agriculture Development 2002 - 10/7
J. Selye University Faculty of Economics 2004 - 10/4
J. Selye University Faculty of Reformed Theology 2004 - 10/4
J. Selye University Faculty of Education 2004 - 10/4
Faculty of Informatics and Information
Slovak University of Technology Technologies 2004 - 10/4

- 11 -

Technical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2005 - 10/3
University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004 - 10/4
University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004 - 10/4
Catholic University Faculty of Healthcare 2004 - 10/4
Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004 - 10/4

- 12 -

6. Main results of the assessment

6.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group

Students Publicatio
and Applicati ns and PhD AVERAG
AGRO Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants E 2008 2007 2006
(SV1 – Study (VV1 – (VV4a – (VV7 – RANKIN RANKIN RANKI
SV4) (SV6 – 8) VV2a) VV6) VV10) G G NG
University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 91 90 80 59 95 83.1 1. 1. 1.
Faculty of Forestry Technical University in Zvolen 86 47 66 69 65 66.4 2. 2. 3.
Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 72 56 49 64 43 57.0 3. 3. 2.
Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 70 53 27 75 42 53.5 4. 4. 4.
Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical University in Zvolen 62 67 15 60 31 46.9 5. 5. 5.
Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape
43.8 6. 6. 6.
Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 58 53 3 79 26

Publications
Students and Applications and Citations 2008 2007 2006
AGRO Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
RANKIN RANKIN RANKIN
(SV1 – SV4) (SV6 – 8) VV2a) (VV4a – VV6) – VV10) G G G
University of Veterinary Medicine 91 90 80 59 95 83.1 1. 1. 1.
Technical University in Zvolen 74 57 40 64 48 56.7 2. 2. 2.
Slovak University of Agriculture 67 54 27 73 37 51.4 3. 3. 3.

- 13 -
ARRA, Bárdošova 2/A, 831 01 Bratislava, ID No: 30857091, Reg. No. VVS/1-900/90-245 03 phone: +421 2 5443 2246 www.arra.sk E-mail: arra@arra.sk Bank details: Slovenská sporiteľňa, A/C No:
0178751805/0900

The order in this group has changed only slightly compared to the previous assessment.
Zvolen University of Technology’s Faculty of Forestry confirmed second position it held in the
last two years. The University of Veterinary Medicine has a convenient lead on other faculties in
the group and has been ranking first in the group since the assessments started. It can therefore be
assumed that it will maintain the very good results in the assessment in the long term.

The faculty keeps the trend of marked improvements in citation rates of its publications.
In the number of citations per publication, it has outperformed the leader of the group, the
University of Veterinary Medicine, for the second year in a row and the difference between the
two even increases. A careful look at the publications that caused this shift shows that the Zvolen
faculty established international cooperation and that the scientifically “successful” publications
originate from this very cooperation. This qualitative shift is reflected in further increases in grant
funds.

Another trend is the decreasing performance of Zvolen University of Technology’s
Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology concerning the results of scientific activity and the
ability to obtain grant funding for science and research. This fact is counterbalanced by the
students’ great interest in studying at this faculty which interest is significantly higher than that in
all other faculties of the AGRO group. It is apparent that the students do not make their decisions
on the basis of criteria of success in science and of obtaining funds but they decide on the basis of
other factors that are unrelated to the quality of the institution itself.

Slovak University of Agriculture’s Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering
has long been ranking last and has the poorest results in scientific activity. However, when we
correlate this situation with its PhD studies we find that it is achieving high figures in the
numbers of PhD graduates and in the numbers of PhD students at the faculty. This is an
interesting situation which shows clearly that the claim that the better scientific results an
institution has, the better and higher-quality PhD studies it provides does not hold in Slovakia
(other examples of this trend will be provided further in the text).

- 14 -

6.2 Universities and faculties of the MED group

Students Publicatio
and Applicati ns and PhD
AVERAG
MED Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 74 85 72 25 69 65.1 1. 1. 1.
Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 61 66 21 86 61.0 2. 4. 5.
Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 67 69 93 9 48 57.2 3. 2. 2.
Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 81 77 49 24 21 50.3 4. 3. 4.
Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work Trnava University 68 33 60 56 25 48.4 5. 5. 3.
St. Elizabeth University St. Elizabeth University 37 73 40 50 27 45.6 6. 6. 6.
Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare Constantine the Philosopher University 36 46 7 49 36 34.9 7. 7. 7.
Faculty of Healthcare University of Prešov 28 44 3 0 0 15.1 8. 8. 8.
Faculty of Healthcare Catholic University 31 31 - - 12 14.7 9. 9. n.a.

Publications
MED Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Comenius University 74 77 71 19 46 57.5 1. 1. 1.
Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 61 66 21 86 61.0 2. 2. 3.
Trnava University 68 33 60 56 25 48.4 3. 3. 2.
St. Elizabeth University 37 73 40 50 27 45.6 4. 4. 4.
Constantine the Philosopher University 36 46 7 49 36 34.9 5. 5. 5.
University of Prešov 28 44 3 - 0 15.1 6. 6. 6.
Catholic University 31 31 - - 12 14.7 7. 7. n.a.

- 15 -
0178751805/0900

In the MED group, a clear division into the faculties of medicine and pharmacy on the one
hand and the faculties of healthcare on the other hand can be seen. These two groups differ in all
indicators monitored, therefore the following text will analyse these two groups separately to
eventually compare them.

In the long term, faculties of medicine and the Faculty of Pharmacy are characterised by a
relatively low number of students per teacher (does not exceed 15 students per teacher) and by a
very good qualification structure of pedagogues. The interest in these faculties is consistently
high. This does not hold for third level of higher education, particularly in the case of Comenius
University’s Faculty of Pharmacy which sees a strong trend of decreasing interest in this level of
study as well as dropping numbers of successful graduates. The Faculty has long been the leader
of the group with respect to scientific production but considering the situation in its PhD courses
it is questionable as to whether the level and quantity of Faculty’s scientific production is
sustainable in the long term.

It can be concluded in general that the scientific production of faculties of medicine and
the Faculty of Pharmacy is at a good level which is reflected in the ability of these institutions to
obtain grant funding.

Comenius University’s Jessenius Faculty of Medicine has long been the leader of the
group. It has been holding this position for several years and it is not probable to be succeeded by
another faculty of the group.

In general, faculties of medicine and some faculties of healthcare have high numbers of
foreign students which indicates the attractiveness of these faculties for students from abroad.
Only a more detailed analysis (for example, using a questionnaire for foreign students) would
show whether the attractiveness is based on financial aspects or on the quality of the study – or
both.

In the case of faculties of healthcare, the situation is very different. The numbers of
students per teacher mostly considerably exceed 20. As for the number of students per professor
or associate professor, the figures exceed 100. A change occurred in the case of Catholic
University’s Faculty of Healthcare which reduced the numbers of students significantly. A
greater change in the number of foreign students occurred at St. Elizabeth University which
opened full-time studies at its workplaces in Germany, Serbia, Kenya, and Cambodia. As for
scientific production it can be concluded that faculties of healthcare by no means reach the
parameters of faculties of medicine. More significant scientific production with an increasing
trend was seen only at Trnava University’s Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work and at St.
Elizabeth University. Despite its short existence, St. Elizabeth University is the leader of the

- 16 -

entire MED group in the number of citations per publication.

A comparison of these two groups shows that faculties of healthcare differ particularly in the
numbers of students per teacher but in the remaining criteria, the two faculties of healthcare, i.e.,
Trnava University’s Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work and St. Elizabeth University, could
be included in the first group which is characterised by significant scientific production and
success in obtaining grants. In reference to obtaining grants, it should be mentioned that St.
Elizabeth University as a private higher education institution cannot apply for grants from the
VEGA and KEGA agencies.

Other faculties of healthcare considerably lag behind the results of the first 6 institutions
in the MED group.

- 17 -

6.3 Universities and faculties of the TEOL group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
TEOL Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 67 45 104 70 - 57.0 1. 3. 2.
Faculty of Theology Catholic University 46 40 5 46 75 42.5 2. 7. 6.
Faculty of Reformed Theology J. Selye University 98 73 - 33 - 40.7 3. 1. n.a.
Greek Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Prešov 52 63 5 29 25 34.7 4. 6. 5.
Faculty of Theology Trnava University 68 42 7 43 5 33.0 5. 5. 1.
Roman Catholic Faculty of Theology of Cyril and
32.9 6. 2. 3.
Methodius Comenius University 54 38 8 64 -
Faculty of Orthodox Theology University of Prešov 54 21 6 54 24 31.7 7. 4. 4.

Publications
TEOL Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Comenius University 61 42 56 67 - 44.9 1. 2. 2.
Catholic University 46 40 5 46 75 42.5 2. 5. 4.
J. Selye University 98 73 - 33 - 40.7 3. 1. n.a.
University of Prešov 53 42 5 41 24 33.2 4. 4. 3.

- 18 -
0178751805/0900

- 19 -
0178751805/0900

For the first time, the group of theological faculties has been assessed separately in this
report. Previously, it was part of the HUM group. Theological faculties are characterised by large
diversity as far as the number of students per teacher or professor and associate professor is
concerned. Those that provide extensive part-time courses have high numbers of students relative
to teachers; the opposite is true of those that do not have part-time students. What is interesting is
the case of Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University which admitted significantly more
students than in the previous year but thanks to several inaugurations and habilitations at the
faculty, the ratio of students to professors or associate professors remained unchanged.

Theological faculties are characterised by very low scientific activity with respect to
publications in journals listed in Current Contents but also with respect to their ability to obtain
grant funding. On the other hand, they are successful in PhD studies which confirms the specific
feature of Slovakia that PhD studies are doing well at scientifically poor faculties.

Evangelical Theological Faculty of Comenius University ranks first again.

- 20 -

6.4 Universities and faculties of the FIL group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
FIL Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Philosophy Comenius University 100 65 62 95 43 73.1 1. 2. 1.
Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 76 47 102 57 56 67.7 2. 1. 2.
Faculty of Philosophy University of Prešov 80 69 54 67 15 57.1 3. 4. 4.
Faculty of Philosophy Trnava University 67 48 46 73 44 55.6 4. 5. 3.
Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 75 40 29 47 79 54.0 5. 3. 7.
Faculty of Philosophy Constantine the Philosopher University 62 89 5 67 22 49.1 6. 6. 5.
Faculty of Humanities Matej Bel University 68 53 15 62 9 41.3 7. 7. 6.
Faculty of Philosophy University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 64 46 12 2 17 28.0 8. 8. 8.

Publications
FIL Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
University of Prešov 78 58 78 62 36 62.4 2. 1. 2.
Catholic University 75 40 29 47 79 54.0 4. 3. 6.
Matej Bel University 68 53 15 62 9 41.3 6. 6. 5.
University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 64 46 12 2 17 28.0 7. 7. 7.

- 21 -
0178751805/0900

The FIL group is one of the newly formed groups. Previously, it was part of the HUM group. The
group comprises faculties of philosophy and faculties of humanities. The group is characterised
by a good ratio of the number of students to teachers and a relatively high interest in study.
Similarly as with theological faculties, scientific production in journals listed in Current Contents
is very low although it can be said to show a slightly rising trend. Prešov University’s Faculty of
Humanities and Natural Sciences is an unwavering leader in citations. A closer look shows that a
majority of its most cited publications involves papers from the natural science part of this
Faculty.

In PhD studies, the situation is similar as that at healthcare faculties. Again, the relatively
high proportion of PhD students does not correlate with poor scientific production of the
faculties.

The first five ranking faculties kept their positions from the previous year, Comenius
University’s Faculty of Philosophy coming first.

- 22 -

6.5 Universities and faculties of the UMEL group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
UMEL Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Performing Arts 74 69 35 90 - 53.6 1. 2. 1.
Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 54 73 3 51 66 49.2 2. 5. 4.
Film and Television Faculty Academy of Music and Performing Arts 88 53 2 95 4 48.4 3. 4. 3.
Theatre Faculty Academy of Music and Performing Arts 71 50 3 65 50 47.9 4. 3. 2.
Faculty of Music Academy of Arts 86 54 1 30 30 40.4 5. 1. 5.
Faculty of Fine Arts Academy of Arts 62 50 5 38 19 34.8 6. 6. 6.
Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 82 51 4 - 18 31.2 7. 7. 7.
Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 45 63 2 - 5 22.9 8. 8. 8.

Publications
UMEL Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Academy of Music and Performing Arts 78 58 13 83 18 50.0 1. 1. 1.
Academy of Fine Arts and Design 54 73 3 51 66 49.2 2. 2. 2.
Academy of Arts 77 51 3 23 23 35.5 3. 3. 3.
Technical University of Košice 45 63 2 - 5 22.9 4. 4. 4.

- 23 -
0178751805/0900

Faculties of art are characterised by lower numbers of students compared to other schools.
This is caused by the specificity of studies in these disciplines, requiring individual approach by
teachers. According to ARRA criteria, the qualification structure of pedagogues at these faculties
is generally good. As for numbers of foreign students, the leaders include the Academy of Fine
Arts; the Faculty of Music and Dance, Academy of Music and Performing Arts; and the Faculty
of Music, Academy of Arts; of which the Faculty of Music and Dance, Academy of Music and
Performing Arts; and the Faculty of Music, Academy of Arts, lag behind in the interest of Slovak
students in studying at these institutions. In general, the high (measured by Slovak standards)
proportion of foreign students suggests a good reputation of these institutions abroad and
indicates their quality.

Considering scientific production in journals listed in Current Contents, the outputs of
these schools are minimal which can be explained by these schools being focused on arts rather
than on science.

For faculties of art, therefore, it is not possible to correlate PhD studies with scientific
outputs, as the mission of these institutions is primarily to have outputs in art and these are not
reflected in scientific databases.

These faculties are not very successful in obtaining grants which can be reflected in their
quality in the long term.

The ranking is dominated by all three faculties of the Academy of Music and Performing
Arts jointly with the Academy of Fine Arts and Design.

- 24 -

6.6 Universities and faculties of the PRIR group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
PRIR Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Mathematics, Physics, and
79.8 1. 1. 1.
Informatics Comenius University 86 56 100 67 89
Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 85 78 52 85 66 73.2 2. 2. 2.
Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 95 63 76 65 44 68.5 3. 3. 3.
Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 67 62 18 65 22 46.5 4. 4. 5.
Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical University in Zvolen 64 53 18 53 10 39.6 5. 5. 4.
Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 43 76 5 43 4 34.1 6. 8. 8.
Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 45 55 18 31 6 31.2 7. 6. 6.
Faculty of Natural Sciences University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 54 44 22 5 14 27.8 8. 7. 7.

Publications
PRIR Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 95 63 76 65 44 68.5 2. 2. 2.
Technical University in Zvolen 64 53 18 53 10 39.6 4. 4. 3.
University of Žilina 43 76 5 43 4 34.1 5. 7. 7.
University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 54 44 22 5 14 27.8 7. 6. 6.

- 25 -
0178751805/0900

Similarly as in the MED group, these faculties can be divided into faculties of natural
sciences and Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics at
universities with a longer tradition on the one hand and faculties of natural sciences at newer
universities on the other hand. Faculties of natural sciences are characterised by a considerable
number of pedagogical study programmes. This implies a higher ratio of students to teachers at
these faculties and also a lower scientific performance. The lower scientific performance of
faculties with a shorter history can also be explained by the fact that these faculties have been
established after 1989 without a deeper tradition of natural science research in the given region.
In several recent years, however, these institutions failed to close the gap on faculties of natural
sciences, although, for example, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius’ Faculty of Natural
Sciences, by establishing cooperation with a workplace of the Slovak Academy of Sciences,
increases its scientific potential. Similar process can be seen at Matej Bel University’s Faculty of
Natural Sciences.

Faculties of natural sciences are characterised by strong scientific production. The PRIR
group has been long led by Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and
Informatics. Since the beginning of assessments, it holds the first rank. By involvement in
numerous transnational scientific initiatives, the Faculty continues to increase its scientific
potential.

The second and third ranks are traditionally held by faculties of natural sciences of
Comenius University and Pavol Jozef Šafárik University. Comenius University’s Faculty of
Natural Sciences maintains its lead on Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural
Sciences but the difference is shrinking considerably. Particularly in scientific production, Pavol
Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences increases its lead. Its scientific production
is not yet reflected in grant funding per creative worker in which it lags behind Comenius
University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences by about 1/3 but in the long term, this criterion can also
be expected to change.

What is encouraging is the growth in the number of publications per creative worker at
Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics and Faculty of Natural
Sciences, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences but also at University of
SS. Cyril and Methodius’ Faculty of Natural Sciences, and a similar growth of citations. The
number of citations per paper at the above-mentioned faculties increases too, albeit at a slower
pace.

In general, the ranking of faculties in this group has been very steady since the
assessments started and most of the faculties maintain their positions.

- 26 -

6.7 Universities and faculties of the EKON group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
EKON Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 87 54 82 62 80 72.9 1. 1. 1.
Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 87 57 84 87 22 67.5 2. 2. 2.
Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 95 34 90 66 37 64.4 3. 4. 4.
Faculty of Business University of Economics 70 51 65 86 6 55.7 4. 5. 5.
Faculty of Operation and Economics of
55.5 5. 3. 3.
Transport and Communications University of Žilina 85 78 8 86 20
Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 70 33 54 72 26 51.1 6. 7. 8.
Faculty of Management Comenius University 62 62 40 73 2 48.0 7. 6. 9.
Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 76 35 62 54 12 47.7 8. 9. 10.
Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 82 36 45 59 9 46.2 9. 10. 6.
Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 82 34 19 59 8 40.2 10. 8. 7.
Faculty of Management University of Prešov 38 51 8 15 29 28.4 11. 11. n.a.
Faculty of Economics J. Selye University 38 43 13 - 1 19.0 12. 12. n.a.

Publications
EKON Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Technical University of Košice 87 54 82 62 80 72.9 1. 1. 1.
Slovak University of Agriculture 87 57 84 87 22 67.5 2. 2. 2.
University of Žilina 85 78 8 86 20 55.5 3. 3. 3.
University of Economics 78 37 58 67 18 51.8 4. 5. 5.
University of Prešov 38 51 8 15 29 28.4 7. 7. n.a.
J. Selye University 38 43 13 - 1 19.0 8. 8. n.a.

- 27 -
0178751805/0900

In the previous years, the EKON group was evaluated within the SPOL group. The
separation of the faculties of economics will facilitate orientation of secondary-school graduates
as to the level of individual faculties of similar focus.

Faculties of economics generally exhibit higher numbers of students per teacher than, for
example, natural science schools. This situation is natural, since the teaching of economic
sciences involves only a limited use of experimental laboratories and similar technical facilities at
schools.

Higher students-to-teacher ratios compared to the other faculties can be seen at Comenius
University’s Faculty of Management, Prešov University’s Faculty of Management, and J. Selye
University’s Faculty of Economics. Considering the ratio of students to professor or associate
professor, the situation at Prešov University’s Faculty of Management with 377 students per
professor or associate professor is very difficult to imagine, particularly as far as the teaching
process is concerned.

The interest in these schools is relatively large, particularly in the east of Slovakia where
there are only two institutions of a similar focus.

Scientific production at these schools ranges at low figures. Faculties of economics have
great opportunities to publish in journals listed in Current Contents; however, this possibility is
used to a small extent only, although it should be noted that a moderate improvement occurred in
recent years.

There is an interesting situation in the ability to obtain grant funding concerning Košice
University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics, which has been long showing the ability to
obtain foreign grants at significant levels, having no domestic grant and having apparently
decided for independence from Slovak grant schemes. Yet in the volume of funds obtained per
creative worker it has significantly outperformed other faculties in the group.

The order in the resulting table changes only little. Košice University of Technology’s
Faculty of Economics has been invariably ranking first.

- 28 -

6.8 Universities and faculties of the PRAV group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
PRAV Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Law Comenius University 87 78 23 99 49 67.3 1. 1. 2.
Faculty of Law Trnava University 80 90 6 83 40 59.9 2. 3. 1.
Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 100 56 37 30 59 56.3 3. 2. 3.
Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 71 61 3 32 31 39.6 4. 4. 4.

- 29 -
0178751805/0900

Faculties of law form a special part of the former SPOL group. They exhibit high
application for study rates which are lower only at Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of
Law, nevertheless still ranging at levels that faculties of other specialisations (except for certain
faculties of art) are unable to even approach. The number of students per teacher is similarly high
as at faculties of economics and ranges from about 30 to 45 students per teacher. In the ratio of
students to professor or associate professor, the situation is less favourable with all faculties
except Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Law exceeding the value of 100.

The proportion of foreign students at these schools is low which can be explained by the
specificity of the national system of law but a significant barrier is the lack of courses in any
language other than the state language.

Scientific outputs in journals listed in Current Contents per creative worker approach or
are equal to zero. It should be noted, however, that the availability of publishing in journals listed
in Current Contents is very low compared to, for example, institutions of economics.

PhD studies are undergoing development similarly as those in other social sciences and
humanities in Slovakia. Comenius University’s Faculty of Law defended its first place, the last
position being traditionally held by Matej Bel University’s Faculty of Law.

- 30 -

6.9 Universities and faculties of the PED group

Students Publicatio
AVERAG
PED Teachers ons for Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 75 71 63 73 19 60.0 1. 1. 1.
Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 64 87 43 35 26 51.1 2. 3. 3.
Faculty of Sports University of Prešov 74 59 1 69 50 50.4 3. 4. n.a.
Faculty of Education Trnava University 58 39 104 30 16 49.3 4. 2. 2.
Faculty of Education Comenius University 81 55 16 45 9 41.1 5. 5. 5.
Faculty of Education University of Prešov 50 61 5 29 55 40.1 6. 7. 7.
Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 56 56 10 61 10 38.7 7. 6. 4.
Faculty of Education J. Selye University 66 71 29 - 15 36.3 8. 8. n.a.
Faculty of Education Catholic University 62 62 18 23 7 34.4 9. 9. 6.

Publications
PED Teachers for Study (VV1 – PhD Studies Grants (VV7
AVERAGE
Comenius University 78 63 39 59 14 50.6 1. 2.
University of Prešov 74 59 1 69 50 50.4 2.
Trnava University 61 63 73 32 21 50.2 3. 1.
University of Prešov 50 61 5 29 55 40.1 4.
Constantine the Philosopher University 56 56 10 61 10 38.7 5.
J. Selye University 66 71 29 - 15 36.3 6.
Catholic University 64 67 23 12 11 35.4 7.

- 31 -
0178751805/0900

- 32 -
0178751805/0900

The students to teacher ratio at faculties of education measured by ARRA criteria is good
and ranges from about 10 to 30 students per teacher. As for the ratio of students to professor or
associate professor, the situation is considerably different. The low proportion of professors and
associate professors is caused by the high number of students in this ratio which, for Prešov
University’s Faculty of Education, still reaches 100 students.

It can be concluded in general that for a large majority of schools in the group, the number
of students decreases although the interest in study remains relatively good. These faculties also
failed to internationalise their courses.

As for scientific outputs, low figures are involved, although gradual growth can be seen in
the case of faculties of education of Trnava University and Prešov University. On the other hand,
once a leader of the group in science, Comenius University’s Faculty of Physical Education and
Sports is gradually receding.

Scientific production correlates with the relatively low success rate in grant awards. On
the other hand, it has been shown again that poorer scientific results are without impact on the
quantitative increases in PhD studies.

- 33 -

6.10 Universities and faculties of the TECH group

Students Applicati Publicatio
and ons for ns and PhD
AVERAG
TECH Teachers Study Citations Studies Grants
E
2008 2007 2006
(SV1 – (SV6 – (VV1 – (VV4a – (VV7 – RANKIN RANKIN RANKI
SV4) 8) VV2a) VV6) VV10) G G NG
Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak University of Technology 100 50 92 64 72 75.6 1. 1. 1.
Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak University of Technology 60 70 24 45 60 51.8 2. 4. 9.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 75 38 10 71 61 51.0 3. 3. 3.
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak University of Technology 67 58 36 38 54 50.6 4. 2. 2.
Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 83 32 22 67 40 49.0 5. 7. 6.
Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 55 40 39 65 26 45.1 6. 10. 8.
Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and
44.0 7. 9.
Geotechnology Technical University of Košice 49 53 18 54 46 5.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak University of Technology 66 64 15 33 39 43.3 8. 5. 4.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 55 38 6 48 62 41.7 9. 12. 13.
Faculty of Management Science & Informatics University of Žilina 52 51 18 71 12 40.7 10. 20. 18.
Faculty of Architecture Slovak University of Technology 57 79 1 51 14 40.4 11. 11. 7.
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 62 35 19 45 39 40.1 12. 13. 10.
Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 66 41 10 48 26 38.3 13. 17. 15.
Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 54 47 1 45 40 37.5 14. 15. 14.
Faculty of Informatics and Information
37.3 15. 6.
Technologies Slovak University of Technology 45 43 49 19 30 n.a.
Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 49 51 19 37 29 37.1 16. 8. 12.
Faculty of Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 59 50 12 49 13 36.6 17. 14. 19.
Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing
35.7 18. 19.
Technology Technical University in Zvolen 70 39 0 40 29 17.
Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak University of Technology 47 53 14 39 23 35.1 19. 16. 16.
Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 48 57 1 39 22 33.5 20. 21. 11.
Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 44 52 - 33 11 28.0 21. 18. 20.
Faculty of Special Technology Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 46 33 0 25 1 21.0 22. 23. 21.
Faculty of Aeronautics Technical University of Košice 38 41 6 11 9 20.8 23. 24. n.a.
Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 39 38 4 11 7 19.6 24. 22. 22.

- 34 -
0178751805/0900

Assessment hei 2009

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (8)

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a Assessment hei 2009

Similar a Assessment hei 2009 (20)

Más de arraweb

Más de arraweb (20)

Assessment hei 2009