RT @ArsElectronica: Find out more about the 2018 Ars Electronica Festival and download the festival catalogue and helpful maps free of char…
Welcome to bridges!
bridges is published by the Office of Science & Technology at the Embassy of Austria in Washington, DC.
You may now login in the upper right-hand corner of the screen.
The bridges archive is located in the top navigation menu listed as "Previous Issues". You can also use the header search function to look for articles by keyword.
We wish you an enjoyable reading experience!
The bridges Team
1. OECD. "Education at a Glance: 2010: OECD Indicators." 2010.
2. College Board. "Education Pays 2010: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society." 2010.
3. College Board. "The College Completion Agenda: 2010 Progress Report." 2010. <http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/reports_pdf/Progress_Report_2010.pdf >
4. Lumina Foundation for Education. "A Stronger Nation through Higher Education." 2010.
5. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. "Help wanted- Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018." 2010. <http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/FullReport.pdf >
6. State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). "State Higher Education Finance FY 2009." 2010.
7. The White House. "Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery. Address to Joint Secession of Congress. Tuesday, February 24th, 2009." (accessed September 13, 10)
8. The White House. "Making College More Affordable." (accessed November 8, 10) <http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education >
9. The White House. "Remarks by the President in Conference Call with College and University Student-Journalists. September 27, 2010." (accessed November 17, 10)
10. The White House. "Remarks by the President on Higher Education and the Economy at the University of Texas at Austin. August 9, 2010." (accessed November 26, 10)
11. The White House. "Investing in Pell Grants to Make College Affordable." (accessed December 10, 10)
12. The White House. "Ensuring That Students Loans are Affordable." (accessed December 11, 10)
13. The White House. "Building American Skills Through Community Colleges." (accessed December 10, 10)
14. The White House Blog. "Get The Facts on the DREAM Act." (accessed December 10, 10)
15. The White House Blog. "Make Higher Education Available to 100% of Americans." (accessed November 17, 10)
16. Forbes.com. "Obama's Goal for Higher Education. November 8, 2010." (accessed November 9, 10)
17. U.S. Government Printing Office. "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" (accessed December 15, 10)
18. The Chronicle of Higher Education. "High-School Dropout Rate is Cited as a Key Barrier to Obama's College-Completion Goal. May 25, 2010." (accessed November 26, 10)
19. The Chronicle of Higher Education. "Obama's Higher-Education Goal Is Ambitious but Achievable, Leaders Say. February 26, 2009." (accessed November 8, 10)
20. The Chronicle of Higher Education. "America Falling: Longtime Dominance in Education Erodes. October 5, 2009." (accessed November 29, 10)
21. The Chronicle of Higher Education. "Almanac Issue 2010-11."
22. College Inc. "Adults with ‘some college' key to Obama's graduation goal." (accessed October 1, 10)
23. The Chronicle of Higher Education. "In Interview, Education Secretary Cites Need for Improvement in College Completion and Cost Control. May 1, 2009" (accessed October 1, 10)
24. U.S. Department of Education. "The Vision of Education Reform in the United States: Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France. November 4, 2010" (accessed December 10, 10)
25. U.S. Department of Education. "Education and International Competition: The Win-Win Game. Secretary Duncan's Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, New York City.
October 19, 2010" (November 9, 10)
26. U.S. Department of Education. "The Linchpin: The New Mission of Community Colleges. Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the White House Summit on Community Colleges." (accessed December 7, 10)
27. U.S. Department of Education Blog. "Ensuring Your Success." (accessed November 17, 10)
Click here to go back to article.
This K2 research program constitutes an integrated and systematic approach to exploiting the full optimization potential in all areas of vehicle development. It concentrates its competencies on the development of new technologies, methods, and tools concerning the full-vehicle system.
The essential goal is the combination of different disciplines with an integrated engineering approach.
Five research areas cover the required fields of knowledge:
1) System Design & Optimization
3) Noise, Vibration, Harshness & Friction
5) Vehicle Electrical Systems/Electronics & Software.
The goals of this K2-Center are:
- Innovative vehicle concepts, focusing on lightweight design, high safety standards, and reduced emissions
- Full-vehicle optimization and multidisciplinary co-development
- Development of integrated verification methods and new testing strategies
- Addressing the need for new, efficient, fast, and realistic evaluation and calibration methods
- Evaluation and optimization of full-vehicle E/E architectures
- Comprehensive analysis of mechanical, electrical, and electronic vehicle systems.
The K2 Project was put into action by a single company as a merger of the two leading research companies VIRTUAL VEHICLE Competence Center ("ViF," founded in 2002, 100 staff) and Acoustic Competence Center ("ACC," founded in 1999, 20 staff), including additional topics from the research consortium "Knet VKM der Zukunft" in close cooperation with the Graz University of Technology as well as national/international industry (more than 40 partners) and research (more than 30 partners). Shareholders in this venture will be TU Graz, AVL, MAGNA Steyr, Siemens, and Joanneum Research.
Company partners include:
Audi AG, AVL List GmbH, BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Porsche AG, Infineon Technologies Austria AG, MAGNA STEYR Fahrzeugtechnik AG, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG, Mecanica Solutions Inc., Siemens Transportation Systems GmbH, and voestalpine Stahl GmbH.
Scientific partners include:
TU Graz, TU Wien, Karl-Franzens University (all Austrian), TU Kaiserslautern, and TU Munich (Germany).
International partners include:
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (Hungary), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), Royal institute of Technology/M. Wallenberg Lab (Sweden), Illinois State University/ ACRC (USA), and Concordia University (Canada).
The planned number of personnel is 210-225 full-time equivalents; at present, K2 mobility has 131 staff members. The total budget for the first funding period was €63,531million, the leader of this consortium is Rector Univ. Prof. Dr. Hans Sünkel from TU Graz.
Click here to go back to the article.
Within a period of two years, the company "Language Weaver" has developed a fully functional commercial software product from a novel, statistics-based, translation technology brought to a research prototype by the company founders - professors and researchers at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute.
The translations of documents, newscasts, and other source materials for defense and commercial purposes include Arabic, Farsi, Somali, Hindi, Chinese, French, and Spanish.
The company founders are still professors at the university. The company now has about 35 employees, many of them attracted from the university's Infor¬mation Sciences Institute.
The machine-based software uses computational algorithms and probability statistics to learn from existing translated parallel texts, analyze words and word groupings, and build translation parameters that will afford the highest statisti¬cal probability of providing a correct translation. Language Weaver's technology offers societal benefits in several ways: First, it reportedly achieves a significantly higher level of accuracy in translation than counterpart rule-based machine translations, delivering greater value to customers. Second, it is able to provide translation systems in languages for which there is a shortage of available translators and a considerable demand for translations, particularly for defense purposes. Third, it can be more cost-effective than human translators for translation of large volumes of information. Fourth, the technology may offer a faster means for obtaining needed translations by its ability to process large volumes of data quickly. For example, it reportedly can process in one minute what a human translator would take several days to produce.
Funding sources for the company are federal government grants, venture capital, and licens¬ing revenue.
In 2001 the founders submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and received an SBIR grant the following year. The technology was thought to be interesting and subsequently the company was able to obtain venture capital funding as well.
At the end of 2002, the company was incorporated when it got the first STTR grant. Language Weaver was then given a chance to convert the STTR into an SBIR grant, which was accepted, because the SBIR offered more advantages.
Since its founding in 2002, Language Weaver has received a total of $150,000 in Phase I SBIR grants and $1,500,000 in Phase II grants. The SBIR grants were given by the NSF and the US Army.
In addition to its SBIR grants, the company received a multi-year grant from the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) for a large-scale syntax-based system, expected to bear fruit several years out. The ATP funds amounted to $1,972,557 for the period 12/1/2004 -11/30/2007.
For the detailed case study, please visit this link .
Click here to go back to the article.
bridges vol. 26, July 2010 / Feature Article
Bergh, D., Perry, J., & Hanke, R. (2005). Some predictors of SMJ article impact. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), pp. 81-100.
Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in higher education 6(1), pp. 41-60.
Bowen, W. G., and Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Boyer, Ernest L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brooks, R. L. (2005). Measuring University Quality. Review of Higher Education, 29, (1), pg. 1-22. (Read online, no page numbers available)
Brooks, R. L., & Junn, J. (2002). How well can reputations be measured? Analysis of 1992-93 NRC data. Unpublished manuscript, Association of American Universities' Assessing Quality of University Education and Research Project.
Cartter, AM (1966). An assessment of quality in graduate education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Casper, Gerhard (1996). Criticism of College Rankings-A Letter to US News & World Report. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html.
Clarke, M. (2002). Some guidelines for academic quality rankings. Higher Education in Europe. XXVII (4), pp. 443-459.
Clarke, M. (July 2005). Quality assessment lessons from Australia and New Zealand. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), pp. 183-198.
Cohen, D. (2004). New Zealand Releases Controversial University Rankings. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 May 2004. Retrieved 10 May 2006 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i35/35a04202.htm,
Cunningham,D. (2002). " 2002-2003 Business Plan". Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario
deMiguel, J.M., Vaquera, E., and Sanchez, J. (July 2005). Spanish universities and the Ranking 2005 initiative. Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2), p. 199-216.
Diamond, N., & Graham, H. D. (2000, July/August). How should we rate research universities? Change, 32, 20-33.
Dill, D. & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, pp. 495-533.
Drolet, D. (2006, June-July 2006). Many quit Maclean's survey. University Affairs, 47, 28-29.
Eccles, C. (2002). ‘The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom', Higher Education in Europe 27(4), 423-432.
Economist (The) (June 6, 2002). Coming to a university near you (MBA Rankings-Latin America).
Ehrenberg, R.G. (2002b). Tuition Rising: Why College Costs so Much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goddard, A, Thomson, A and Wojtas, O (December 1999). How did you perform? Times Higher Education Supplement, 3, p 4.
Gola, M. (2003). Premises to accreditation: A minimum set of accreditation requirements in accreditation models in higher education experiences and perspectives in ENQA. Workshops Reports 3, European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Helsinki, 25-31.
Gormley, W.T. Jr. and Weimer, D.L. (1999). Organizational Report Cards. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graunke, S. & Woosley, S. (June 2005). An exploration of the factors that affect the academic success of college sophomores. College Student Journal.
Guarino, C., et al (2005). Latent Variable Analysis: A New Approach to University Ranking, Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2): Ranking systems and methodology in higher education, 147-165.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (1999). Performance Indicators in Higher Education: First Report of the Performance Indicators Steering Group (PISG). Report 99/11, Higher Education Funding Council for England: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1999/99%5F11.htm
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2003). Performance Indicators in Higher Education: 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Report 2003/59, Higher Education Funding Council for England: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/perfind/ 2003/default.asp
Himmel, K. L. (1967). The number of years of high school science as a predictor of first year college success compared with other predictors. (Research report), Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED027202).
Hodges, Shannon (2002). Authentic values and ersatz standards: Making sense of college rankings. Academe, 88(6), pp. 33-35.
Hoschl, C., & Kozeny, J. (1997). Predicting academic performance of medical students: The first three years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(6), pp. 87-92.
Houglum, J.E., Aparasu, R.R., and Delfinis, T. M. (2005). Predictors of academic success and failure in pharmacy professional program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(2), p. 43.
Jenkins, Neil J. (1992). The scholastic aptitude test as a predictor of academic success: A literature review. Education Resources Information Center, ED354243.
Jensen, S. (1989). Predictors of success for allied health students. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 11(4), pp. 297-304.
Jobbins, D. (2005). Moving to a Global Stage: A Media View, Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2): Ranking systems and methodology in higher education, 137-145.
Liu, N.C. and Liu, L. (July 2005). University rankings in China. Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2), p. 217-228.
Liu, N.C., and Cheng, Y. (2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities, Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2): Ranking systems and methodology in higher education, 127-136.
Marc, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 5, 443-461.
Meeker, F. (1994). Predictors of academic success in the undergraduate psychology major. Teaching of Psychology, 21(4), pp. 238-241.
Moore, W., Newman, R., & Turnbull, G. (2001). Reputational capital and academic pay. Economic Inquiry, 39(4), pp. 663-671.
MUN. (November 2, 1995). How Memorial compares to other comprehensive Canadian universities [Electronic Version]. Memorial University of Newfoundland Gazette. Retrieved April 2006 from http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/gazette/1995-96/Nov.2/special/s3-comp.
Pace, C.R., & Wallace, D.G. (1954). Evaluation of institutional programs. Review of Educational Research, 24(4), pp. 341-350.
PEQAB (2006). "Qualiy Assessment Panel Guidelines for Degree Programs". The Post Secondary Education Quality Assessment Board, Ontario.
Pike, G. R. (2004, March). Measuring quality: A comparison of U.S. News rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 193-208.
Print M. & Hattie J. (1997). Measuring quality in university: An approach to weighting research productivity. Higher Education. 33, 453-469.
Provan, D. and Abercromby, K. (December 2000). CHEMS Paper No. 30. University league tables and rankings: A critical analysis.
Ramsden, P. (1999). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge
Rocki, M. ( July 2005). Polish rankings: Some mathematical aspects. Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2), p. 173-182.
SLATE: Organizational History, page 4. Retrieved on 13 March 2006, from http://www.slatearchives.org/orghist.htm,
Stuart, D. (1995). Reputational rankings: Background and development. New Directions for Institutional Research, 88.
Stuit, D. (1960). Evaluation of institutions and programs. Review of Educational Research, 30(4), pp. 371-384.
The Globe and Mail (August 15, 2006). Universities boycott Maclean's ranking, page A10.
The Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
Tight, M. (2000). ‘Do league tables contribute to the development of a quality culture?Football and higher education compared', Higher Education Quarterly 54(1), 22-42.
Ting, Siu-man (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive variables in predicting academic success of first-generation college students. College and University, 78, 4, 27-31.
Turner, D.R. (September 2005). Benchmarking in universities: league tables revisited. Oxford Review of Education. 31(3), 353-371.
Usher, A. & Savino, M. (January 2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Education Policy Institute: Canadian Education Report Series.
Van Dyke, N, (2005). Twenty years of university report cards, Higher Education in Europe, 30 (2): Ranking systems and methodology in higher education, 103-126.
Watkins, David (1986). Learning processes and background characteristics as predictors of tertiary grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 1, 199-203.
Webster, D. S. (1986). Academic quality rankings of American colleges and universities. Springfield, MA: Charles C. Thomas.
WENR (September/October 2003). Nigeria: NUC releases 2003 university rankings. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.wes.org/ewenr/03Sept/Africa.htm
Williams, R., & Van Dyke, N. (November 2004). The international standing of Australian universities. Report No. 4, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research: The University of Melbourne.
Winston, G.C. and Zimmerman, D.J. (2003). ‘Peer effects in higher education', NBER Working Paper 9501: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9501 .
Yonezawa T., Nakatsui I. and Kobayashi T. (2002). University Rankings in Japan, Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 373-382.
Click here to go back to the article.
More Articles ...
- References for the Article "America in the World: Higher Education and the Global Marketplace"
- Reference List: EPA at 40
- References List: Introducing Sylvia Stoeckler Ipsiroglu
- Background Information: Review procedures of the EC-US S&T Agreement