TFL Vsebine / Revija Javna uprava

Članek se osredotoča na lestvice (pravnih) šol, ki v tujini igrajo pomembno vlogo pri zagotavljanju informacij deležnikom. Pri nas v preteklosti zaradi največkrat popolnega monopola edinega državnega ponudnika storitev izobraževanja na določenem področju in posledičnega neobstoja konkurence potreb po tovrstnih lestvicah ni bilo. V zadnjih letih pa sta se pojavili dve ključni spremembi, ki sta zagotovo povečali povpraševanje po informacijah za odločanje in signaliziranje na trgih šolstva in dela: v določenih segmentih trga visokega šolstva, tudi na pravnem področju, se je z novimi ponudniki pojavila dodatna ponudba študijskih programov, kot drugo pa se je obenem trg dela za visoko izobražene na ponudbeni strani popolnoma zasičil. Posledično je zelo verjetno, da bo na potrebo po lestvicah zaradi vedno močnejšega povpraševanja po le-teh prej ali slej odgovoril trg. Lestvice imajo nesporno pozitiven vpliv na povečano spremljanje, obdelovanje in objavo relevantnih podatkov za odločanje in signaliziranje kvalitete deležnikov na relevantnih trgih; lahko pa prinesejo tudi nekatere negativne eksternalije. Zato bi bilo na tej točki potrebno, da država razmisli o sprejemu določenih preventivnih ukrepov na način, da sama zagotovi nekatere najbolj pomembne vhodne podatke za izračun lestvic ter sestavljavcem lestvic tudi pomaga preprečevati poskuse šol za goljufanje pri posredovanju drugih podatkov. Ob tem pa se s strani države nikakor ne bi smelo posegati v same ponderje morebitnih lestvic oz. le-te kakorkoli razglašati za (ne)ustrezne z vsebinskega vidika. Posamezniki imamo namreč različne značilnosti in preference, zato je potrebno dopustiti, da si vsak sam izbere tisto lestvico, za katero meni, da najbolje odslikuje njegove želje in potrebe.

This paper focuses on rankings of (law) schools which in some countries represent an important source of information for stakeholders. In the past, in Slovenia, the State had monopoly over supply in the market for higher education; consequently, there was no need for such rankings. Within the last couple of years, however, we have experienced two important changes which most certainly produced demand for such information: entry of new schools in some of the market segments, including the legal-one, and with it creation of competition among them; as well as, at the same time, saturation of the labor market for candidates with university diplomas. Consequently, it is very likely that market forces will soon produce an answer to actual demand for (law) school rankings. There is no doubt about positive incentives of rankings for collection, processing and publication of relevant statistical data that can be used by stakeholders for decision-making as well as signaling in the markets. Nevertheless, they can also produce some negative externalities. Therefore, the State should consider taking some measures: in the paper, it is suggested that it could, firstly, provide the most important data input for the rankings as well as secondly, use its services to minimize the possibilities for schools to be able to report forged/deficient data to ranking-providers. On the other hand, however, it should not in any way interfere with the contents of rankings by prescribing what to measure and how to do it. Since individuals have different characteristics as well as preferences, which cannot be put together in one universal mathematical formula, the State should leave them full freedom of choice regarding the question which rankings to consider as relevant.

Possibilities for and opportunities of (law) school rankings in Slovenia