An Explanation of Inequalities and Ranking in Universities of Tehran toward Sustainable Development

Document Type : Research Paper


1 PhD in Education Management, University of Tehran

2 Associate Professor of Educational Management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

3 Professor of Educational Management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

4 Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran


Development of higher education in the recent years makes it necessary to ensure quality in evaluation of universities. The importance of the evaluation is that it can determine the realities. Education assessment is a formal activity to determine the quality and efficiency of curriculum. To measure the quality, we have to consider the criteria and indices. The indices and criteria are numerical values representing qualitative attributes in numbers. The numerical indices were used as a mechanism for efficiency analysis to assess the universities. This is the task of the governments to show and eliminate the inequalities in education. Equal education opportunities in schools mean equal access of all to the efficient education for sustainable development. The education for sustainable development is learning based on some principles with the aim of sustainability in all levels. Thus, the purpose of this present research is to make a ranking of the universities of Tehran City using document indices. 
This is an applied research with survey method for data gathering. The population of this study is all the students of the universities of Tehran City. Using Cochran, we have selected 383 individuals by proportional classes and distributed questionnaires among them. The tool has Cronbach alpha quotient of 0.951 and its reliability and validity have been confirmed. We have used SPSS for data analysis. The Analytic Network Process model has also been used to prioritize the indices and TOPSIS to make the ranking of the universities. In the TOPSIS analysis as a multi-criteria decision making, an m*n matrix has been formed and the indices and universities have been assigned in the columns and rows. Following the scale changes, the weights of indices have been determined by entropy. After that, we got positive and negative ideal solutions. The differences of the universities from the ideal indicate their position relative to each other. 
Results and discussion
In this research, the universities of Tehran City have been assessed in terms of the indices of higher education. The results of this research have indicated difference among the universities in the enjoyment in the indices. In the integration of the indices, the results have indicated that the Sharif University of Technology, University of Tehran, and Tarbiat Modares University are ranked first, second, and third, respectively. This ranking is mainly consistent with international reports. In two classes of universities of technology and comprehensive universities, the results of this research have indicated that Sharif, Amierkabir, and Science and industry are in the first, second, and third ranks among the universities of technology, respectively, and University of Tehran, Tarbiat Modares, and Shahid Beheshti are ranked in the first, second, and third ranks among the comprehensive universities. The results have stated that the possibilities have the efficiency of 0.88, process indices of education have efficiency of 0.79, and environment and interaction indices have the efficiency of 0.69 as the most effective indices in the ranking. These have also been detailed in direct and indirect effects. 
Education is considered as the most important means to equalize social differences. The equal education only can be achieved by equal access of all to the education. The ranking of the universities can show education and research achievement of the universities. An approach in the ranking of the universities is awareness of their position relative to other universities of the world. As the universities active in a given mission are compared with each other, their position would better be discerned. This study has assessed the inequalities of the universities of Tehran in two groups of technology and comprehensive universities. This study has also made a ranking to eliminate the inequalities in order to achieve the sustainable development goals. For the ranking, we have analyzed more than 500 components in a variety of indices not just research findings indices. 


  1. اونز، رابرت جی و والسکی، توماس سی، ۱۳۹۲، رفتار سازمانی در آموزش و پرورش، ترجمة محمد حسنی و همکاران، انتشارات دانشگاه ارومیه.
  2. بابادی‌عکاشه، زهرا، شریف، سید مصطفی و عبدالرسول جمشیدیان، ۱۳۸۹، تأمین و گسترش برابری فرصت‌ها و عدالت آموزشی در آموزش‌وپرورش استان اصفهان، فصلنامة علمی–پژوهشی رفاه اجتماعی، سال دهم، شمارة 37، صص 287-305.
  3. بازرگان، عباس، ۱۳۸۰، ارزشیابی آموزشی، انتشارات سمت، قم.
  4. برنامة دوم دانشگاه تهران، ۱۳۹۰، ادارةکل برنامه، بودجه و تحول سازمانی، ص ۲۷.
  5. پاکزاد، مهدی، خالدی، آرمان و مهتاب تیموری، ۱۳۹۱، بررسی تطبیقی نظام‌های بین‌المللی رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز آموزش عالی، فصلنامة علمی-پژوهشی رهیافت، شمارة ۵۰، صص 71-93.
  6. جعفری، مصطفی، نوری، سیامک و داود طالبی، ۱۳۹۱، بررسی اولویت‌بندی شاخص‌های مرتبط با فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات به‌منظور ارزیابی عملکرد و رتبه‌بندی دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز آموزش عالی کشور، چشم‌انداز مدیریت دولتی، شمارة ۱۰، صص 115-129.
  7. جوادی، محمدجعفر، ۱۳۷۸، نابرابری‌های آموزشی و ابعاد جامعه‌شناختی آن، پژوهش در مسائل تعلیم و تربیت، شمارة 3، صص 14-31.
  8. داش‌خانه، فاطمه، ۱۳۸۰، بررسی عوامل مؤثر در نابرابری‌های آموزشی در دورة آموزش عمومی به‌منظور ارائة مدل نظری برای آموزش دختران، فصلنامة تعلیم و تربیت، سال هفدهم، شمارة ۴، صص 45-84.
  9. دهقان، حسین، ۱۳۸۳، انواع نابرابری‌های آموزشی، آموزش علوم اجتماعی، دورة هشتم، شمارة ۱، صص ۴2-۴9.
  10. دهقانی، سعیده، ۱۳۸۴، بررسی فرصت‌های آموزشی در استان فارس در برنامة دوم و سوم توسعه، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه اصفهان، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی.
  11. شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی، 1393، ارزیابی علم و فناوری در جمهوری اسلامی ایران، چهارمین ارزیابی خرد آموزش عالی، سال‌های ۱۳۹۰ تا ۱۳۹۱.
  12. عزیزی، نعمت‌الله، ۱۳۷۹، مفهوم کیفیت و نظام‌های بهبود آن در آموزش‌وپرورش، فصلنامة تعلیم و تربیت،(ISC)  علوم تربیتی. تعلیم و تربیت: دورۀ اول، شمارۀ 61، صص 23-43.
  13. فهام، الهام و احمد رضوانفر، ۱۳۹۴، آموزش برای توسعة پایدار در آموزش عالی (مبانی و رهیافت‌ها)، جهاد دانشگاهی واحد صنعتی شریف.
  14. مبانی نظری و مستندات برنامة چهارم، ۱۳۸۳، ایران سیاست اجتماعی، معاونت امور اقتصادی و هماهنگی برنامه و بودجه، تهران: سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی کشور، معاونت امور پشتیبانی، مرکز مدارک علمی و انتشارات.
  15. محمدی، رضا، ۱۳۸۴، ارزیابی درونی کیفیت گروه‌های آموزشی ریاضی محض و کاربردی دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکدة علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران.
  16. هوشیار، روژان، 1390، نقد سیاست رتبه‌بندی علمی دانشگاه‌های جهان در سیستم‌های رتبه‌بندی جهانی براساس معیارهای جاری و ارائة مدل پیشنهادی جدید: مطالعه‌ای بر دانشگاهیان مهاجر دانشگاه‌های کشور ایران.
  17. یمنی‌دوزی‌سرخابی، محمد، ۱۳۷۲، تحلیل نظام آموزشی از دیدگاه توسعه، فصلنامة پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، شمارة ۱، سال اول، صص 61-84.
    1. Azizi, N., 2001, The Concept of Quality Improvement Systems in Education, Journal of Education, Vol. 61, No. 61, PP. 23-43. (In Persian)
    2. Babadi Akashe, Z., Sharif, M., and Jamshidian, A. R, 2011, Providing and Extending Equal Educational Opportunity and Justice in Education Isfahan Province, Journal Social Welfare, Vol. 10, No. 37, PP. 287-305. (In Persian)
    3. Bazarghan, A., 2000, Educational Evaluation, Publications Samt, Qom. (In Persian)
    4. Bennett, C., Both, C., and Yeadle, S., 2001, Mainstreaming Equality in the Committees of The Scottish Parliament, University of Strathclyde.
    5. Bjerke, C. H., and Guhr, D.J., A View on Existing Rankings and the Introduction of U-Multirank in the Light of Students as Key Rankings Stakeholder, The Academic Rankings and Advancement of Higher Education: Lessons from Asia and Other Regions, Proceedings, IREG-6 Conference (Taipei, Taiwan, 19-20 April), Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan, 2012, PP. 259-266.
    6. Dashkhane, F., 2002, Assessing Factors Affecting Educational Disparities in General Education Course in Order to Provide a Theoretical Model for the Education of Girls, Journal of Education, Vol. 4, No. 4, PP. 45-84. (In Persian)
    7. Dehghan, H., 2005, A Variety of Educational Inequality, Education, Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1, PP.42-49. (In Persian)
    8. Dehghani, S., 2006, Evaluation of Educational Opportunities in the Province in the Second and Third Development Programs, Master's Thesis, Isfahan University, Faculty of Education and Psychology. (In Persian)
    9. Dill, D., and Soo.M., 2005, Academic Quality, League Tables, and Public Policy: A Cross National Analysis of University Ranking Systems, Higher Education, Vol. 49, No. 4, PP. 495-533.
    10. Evaluation of Science and Technology in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Fourth Reason Evaluation of Higher Education, 1393, 1390 to 1391, the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Vice President of Strategic Oversight and Approvals.
    11. Evans, Robert J., Valsky, T., and Valsky, C., 2013, Organizational Behavior in Education Translator Doctor Mohamed Hosni, Mary Samaritan, Mohebi and Leila Jawdat Hussein. Urmia University Press.
    12. Faham, E. Rezvanfar, A., 2015, Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education (Principles and Approaches), SID Unit Sharif, the First Year. (In Persian)
    13. Hallinan, T., Maureen., 2002, Equality in Education, in: Encyclopedia of Education and Sociology by David L, Levinson et al, Newyork, Rutledge Falmer.
    14. Hendel, D. D., and Stolz, I., 2008, A Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Ranking Systems in Europe, Tertiary Education and Management, Vol. 3,No. 14, PP. 173-189.
    15. Horn, D., 2010, Essays on Educational Institutions and Ineqalitu of Opportunity, a Doctoral Dissertation Submitted to the Centeral European University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    16. Javadi, M. J., 2000, Unequal Educational Mainstream and its Sociological Dimensions, Research On Educational Issues, Vol, ???, No. 3, PP. 14-31. (In Persian)
    17. Kyllonen, P. C., 2012, The Importance of Higher Education and the Role of Noncognitive Attributes in College Success, Pensamiento Educative, Revista De Investigacion Educacional Lationoamericana, Vol. 49, No. 2, PP. 84-100.
    18. Leinonen, T., 2000, Equality of Education: A Comparative Study of Educational Ideologies of the Word Bank and the Goverement of Zambia in 1971-1996, University of Tampere.
    19. Marginson, S., and Wan Der Wend, M., 2007, To Rank or to Be Ranked: The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education, Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, PP. 308-313.
    20. Marginson, S., 2013, University Rankings and Social Science, European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, PP. 45-59.
    21. Mohamadi, R., 2006, Internal Evaluation of the Quality of Education Departments of Pure and Applied Mathematics, University of Technology, MA Thesis, Faculty of Educational Sciences of Tehran University. (In Persian)
    22. Ogawa, Rodney and Collom (Ed), 1998, Educational Indicators: What Are They? How Can Use Them? University of California, Riverside.
    23. Rocki, M., 2005, Statistical and Mathematical Aspects of Ranking: Lessons From Poland, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 2, No. 30, PP. 173-181.
    24. Sadlak, J. and Liu, N. C., (Eds.), 2007, The World-Class University and Ranking: Aiming Beyond Status, UNESCO-CEPES, Cluj University Press, Bucharest, Romania.
    25. Saisana, M., Hombres, B. D., and Saltelli, A., 2011, Rickety Numbers: Volatility of University Rankings and Policy Implications, Research Policy Vol. 40, No. 1, PP. 165-177.
    26. Shavelson, R. et al., 1991, What are Educational Indicators and Indicator Systems? ERIC, Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
    27. Shin, J. Ch., Toutkoushian, R. K, and Teichler, U., 2011, University Ranking; Teoritical Bases, Metodololigy, and Impact on Global Higher Education, London: Springer Science, PP. 1-55.
    28. Theoretical and Documentation Quarter of 2004, Iran Social Policy, Department of Economic Affairs and Coordination Plan and Budget, Tehran: Management and Planning, Department of Support, Center of Scientific and Publications.
    29. The Second Program, Tehran University, 2012, Office of Planning, Budget and Organizational Change, P. 27.
    30. Usher, A., Savino, M., 2007, A Global Survey of University Ranking and League Tables, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 32, No. 1, PP. 5-15.
    31. Vibeke, Opheim., 2004, Equity in Education Thematic Review, CNIFU, Country Analytical Report, Norway.
    32. Vukasovic, M and Claudias, S., 2010, Inequality in Higher Education, TheSerbian Case, 1-16.
    33. Wood, D.L., and Hahn M. B., 2009, Accreditation Standards of Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Schools: Could They Affect Educational Quality? Acad Med, PP.726-728.
    34. Yamanidouzisorkhabi, M., (1993), Analysis of Education System Development, Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, PP. 61-84.


Volume 50, Issue 3
October 2018
Pages 627-644
  • Receive Date: 23 February 2017
  • Revise Date: 07 January 2018
  • Accept Date: 07 January 2018
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2018