Ambivalent rankings

Michael Eidenbenz - University rankings usually come to the institutions unasked. The results published in the daily media only state the rank and promotion or relegation of the relevant schools, which then have to explain themselves to the public, politicians or donors without being able to seriously analyze the causes because they do not really know the underlying criteria and their survey methods. University rankings are a form of blackmail, you cannot escape them. Music and art colleges have so far been less in the focus of the omnipresent ratings. There is generally an unarticulated and surprisingly homogeneous opinion about which institutions "have a good reputation". However, very few refer to excellent rankings from any agency on their websites, for example. If they do, it is - still - considered rather embarrassing. There is a great deal of skepticism towards the notorious rankings.

However, there is also a broad consensus that the simplifying competition cannot be avoided sooner or later. The trend is continuing and is due, among other things, to the economic globalization of the educational landscape, which demands standardization and therefore cannot block external, globally communicable evaluations. When Asian countries, for example, make the choice of a highly rated university a condition for the granting of scholarships abroad, this has a global impact on the demand for study places.

So how do we deal with the pressure? Defensively, critically, through disregard and refusal? - Or proactively, for example by establishing our own meaningful criteria and measurement methods? The Association européenne des conservatoires (AEC) has drawn up questionnaires and lists of indicators for U-Multirank, an organization that promises to take account of the complexity of institutions and enable a differentiated search along specific performance categories instead of flat rankings. So far, however, the music does not appear on the U-Multirank website due to a lack of participation by the universities. The European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA) is also currently drawing up criteria for an adequate assessment of artistic achievements in teaching and research. It remains to be seen whether this will safeguard the authority to act and avoid the dreaded trivialization. What is interesting, however, is the ambivalence of the debate. It should come as a surprise that there is such a strong resistance to external institutional evaluation in the field of art, whose values are fundamentally determined by public opinion and resonance. But perhaps this is precisely the reason: we ourselves know the means of magic and staging that are used to create significance. We do not allow ourselves to be deprived of this.

Michael Eidenbenz ... is Director of the Department of Music at the Zurich University of the Arts.

MvO - Xavier Bouvier informs about the experience of the HEM in the field of ranking. Ceci in the context that the HEM has participated in a ranking program of the AEC (Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen).

Xavier Bouvier, vous vous orientez avec votre ranking sur les spécifications ou les expériences de l'AEC. À quoi ressemblent-ils exactement ?

The European Conservatoires Association has been working on the issue of ranking since 2014-2015. A specialized working group has been formed and is focusing on the evaluation and adaptation, for the field of music education, of the U-Multirank system promoted and financed by the European Community. The interest of U-Multirank lies in its multidimensional approach, which focuses more on the specificities, the "color" of the institutions than on their classification on a unidimensional level. In order to test the validity, viability and reliability of the "dimensions" developed by its working group, a pilot project was conducted by the AEC in 2015-2016. For our part, we took part in the data collection the following year.

Quelles sont les expériences de ce ranking et quelle influence a-t-il sur la perception de votre Haute École ?

The data collection showed us the relevance of the "dimensions" proposed by the AEC. The project was exploratory, and we did not continue it until we were able to publish the results and observe concrete changes in the perception of the school by the outside world. For internal piloting, we also have other tools at our disposal, such as our participation in the IBE "International Benchmark Exercise" project, which groups together nine schools: Sydney, Helsinki, Boston, etc. This participation allows us to have good elements for international comparisons.

What do you think of rankings in general, and especially in the context of the Hautes Écoles de Musique?

In a world where information and communication are omnipresent, institutions must pay particular attention to ensuring that the rankings reflect a true image of their profile. From this point of view, the fine approach of U-Multirank represents a welcome development compared to more conventional rankings. Among the problems that arise, it should be mentioned that the majority of Swiss music schools are part of holdings plus large, which are themselves the subject of classifications. This can lead to distortions, the multidimensional image of the holding does not necessarily correspond to that of its part of the Haute école de musique. On the other hand, it is advisable to systematically verify the information circulating on the ranking sites. To take a case that amused us a lot, one of the sites ranked the Geneva School of Music in the top 20 worldwide, but it was located in "Swaziland" and not in "Switzerland". Music education is becoming increasingly globalized, and students are mobile: ranking sites can play an important role in helping candidates to identify the school that best meets their expectations, not only in terms of level of excellence, but also in terms of profile, of "color" in particular.

Xavier Bouvier

... est professeur ordinaire, membre du Conseil de direction et chargé de missions à la Haute Ecole de Musique de Genève (HEM)

> www.aec-music.eu/projects/completed-projects/u-multirank

Christoph Brenner - Siamo tutti consapevoli che il mondo della musica, internazionale com'è, sottostà a dei fattori di competizione evidenti. Concorsi ed audizioni mettono i concorrenti in una situazione di competizione naturale; lo stesso fenomeno si presenta nel momen- to degli esami di ammissione in una Scuola universitaria di musica. Nessuno mette in dubbio la com- petizione vera e propria, resta invece la questione sull'adeguatezza dei parametri di giudizio che spesso sembrano privilegiare il cosiddetto "mainstream".

Il discorso diventa più complesso se parliamo di benchmarking, che si basa su un confronto sistematico con strutture analoghe o simili. In un mercato di lavoro (e formativo) internazionale il confronto non è soltanto inevitabile, ma addirittura indispensabile se si vuole migliorare continuamente il proprio livello qualitativo. Based on a structure of "best practices" (which come from effective and efficient practices and not just from "management speak"), the confrontation - with whom you do best - is a stimulus for the daily work and strategic orientation of a school. Segue invece un modello anemico di pura analisi di processi staccati dalla realtà vissuta da collaboratori e studenti, rischia di diventare un approccio con l'efficacia delle macchine di Jean Tinguely, senza il loro fascino, la loro estetica e la loro ironia.

How do we also rank them? Certo, sia la competizione che il benchmarking si basano sul confronto, un ranking è quindi una conseguenza naturale. The problem arises at the moment in which we seek to define a system that creates the illusion of a scientific objectivity through a model based on criteria that correspond to our evaluation and our hierarchy. Il dilemma sta quindi nella scelta dell'approccio: cerchiamo di costruire - o di partecipare - alla costruzione di un modello che riteniamo mediamente oggettivo e rappresentativo, nella speranza che questo s'imponga sugli altri - numerosi - ranking già esistenti, con il rischio reale che tutto il lavoro svolto sia vano! Ci rassegnamo al fatto che i ranking esistono e vengono diffusi, incuranti della loro pertinenza ed adeguatezza? On the other hand, are we trying to find the rules for the most important rankings, by aiming for a better evaluation? Or even: are we trying to do our best, aware of the mechanisms that govern them and of their differences, confident that at the end the ranking systems will, at least partially, recognize the quality of our work?

Christoph Brenner

... è direttore del Conservatorio della Svizzera italiana.

Akvile Sileikaite, who was born in Lithuania in 1992 and has been studying piano at the Zurich University of the Arts ZHdK (Master Specialized Music Performance) since 2015, has won numerous competitions. She believes that only a handful of the competitions have really made a difference to her career; the others were simply exciting and educational to take part in. But competitions will always be very important, and Sileikaite is convinced that perhaps they also serve to give young musicians greater motivation to practise and progress. She also has a clear opinion on the rankings: "As a musician, you know which conservatory is right for you or where the respective instrument is particularly supported. Of course, the most important thing is that you know the professor - it hardly matters where he or she teaches. Except in the case that a professor teaches at different universities, because in this case the ranking could provide important information for the choice of conservatory.