Abstract:

Most current undergraduate curricula focus on outcomes and competencies. Universities are undergoing an unceasing transformation, not only digital but also regarding identity, effectiveness, and quality. Expressions such as "lowering higher education", "lowering the standards", "lowering the bar" or "grade inflation" are becoming increasingly frequent and somehow indicate a mission drift. The recent years are witnessing an ongoing disengagement by students from the educational experience and on the transformative possibilities of higher education. Likewise, COVID-19 has foregrounded diverse disparities within academia. Incoming students access poorly prepared by secondary schools. Only a minority devote the time necessary to prepare for classes. Most students agree to make the minimum effort to complete their degree curricula. Yet some faculties tend to redesign their instruction, teach with students' low expectations, and award good grades for discrete works. There is widespread concern about grade inflation in schools and universities, which foregrounds a decay in the standards of the higher education system. The historical role that grades played in rewarding ability and hard work is fading away, albeit competing continues to be a core criterium to rank outgoing students.

University rankings are synthetic indicators of achievements and capture information on evolutionary aspects such as adaptability to social and market demands, employability, as well as changes in both knowledge areas and degree offerings. Some rankings have become touchstones in quality debates and emerged as references to value university positions. Rankings feature an outward projection of each university's allure or quality and complement the work of the national accreditation agencies. Despite these positive aspects, some institutions may attempt to align their actions toward improving the indicators figures rather than solving actual problems or enhancing their mission efficiency. Acting on indicators rather than on instruction, research, and innovation is a risk to avert. Another risk concerns establishing indicators related to either the research activity or reputation.

University rankings build on sets of indicators that measure their performance and outcomes in instruction, research, innovation, and technological development. General indicators respond to questions such as: how is the evolution of the position of a given university over time?, what about when comparing the same degree among universities?, is there heterogeneity among degrees of the same university?, which are the most productive or efficient universities?, which universities produce more results?, is there any correspondence among the best-known rankings, namely the Shanghai Ranking, QS, CWUR, and the National Rankings?

This work gathers some reflections from the above indicators in engineering education and features that show a time evolution in ratios and figures.
The findings show a good agreement among students on the effectiveness of their learning outcomes as well as a decay in the required knowledge and expected competencies to pass some subjects in engineering degrees.

This study suggests the necessity to take instructional actions to keep quality through the ongoing transformation of universities. The need to shift to a learner-centered approach focused on both active learning and formative assessment emerges as a core issue to adapt instruction amidst the competing pressures.

Keywords:

Higher education, sustainable career, University rankings, active learning, formative assessment, higher instruction quality.