wut: quality assessment fraud #1

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËöÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 2.1 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 1.1 6

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöÅùÔáóß ÿÜóìâóã


- - 5 /- - 8 /

ÝæÂóäÕôÿÚõÚÈóÚ ÛääæùÿÜóìâóãÖòèÖòÈ Öòèìóä ÝææòßÙ°

(%ìäøîëòÕë¬èÚ)(/ = Ûääæù , x = ăâ¬Ûääæù)


5.005.00

ÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚ ìâóãÿìÖù(ÿÂÔÒ° ëÂî.) (ÿË¬Ú ÿìÖùÝæÃîÈÂóäÜäñÿâõÚ

Øö¬Ö¬óÈÉóÂØö¬äñÛùĂÚ SAR)

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËöÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷ÂêóÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 2.2 20% 0.00 0.00

ÖóäóÈØö¬ Ü.1 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚäóãÖòèÛ¬ÈËöÃîÈëôÚòÂÈóÚÅÔñÂääâÂóäÂóäîùÕâé÷Âêó(Å¬óäîãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂ=66.667 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°

ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂìÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5=äîãæñ 30 Ã÷ÚăÜÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5.000)(Å¬óÂóäÿßõ¬âÃöÚÃîÈäîãæñ

îóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂÿÜäöãÛÿØöãÛÂòÛÜöØö¬Ý¬óÚâó=66.667 ÿâø¬î

ÿØöãÛÅ¬óÂóäÿßõ¬âÃöÚÃîÈäîãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬âöÅùÔèùÓõÜäõÎÎóÿîÂÿÜäöãÛÿØöãÛÂòÛÜöØö¬Ý¬óÚâóØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂìÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5 =äîãæñ 6 Ã÷ÚăÜÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5.000)ÿßäóñÊñÚòÚ

ÿÅäø¬îÈÉ÷ÈÿæøîÂÅ¬óÅñĀÚÚ = 5.000

/ 5.00

collegetimes

Sticky Note

66.667% score for the amount of faculty members with a PhD degree results in a 5.00 excellent rating in this category




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 2.4 5

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 2.3 10%



- - 7 /- - 7 /

- - 4 /- - 4 /

- - 7 /

0.00 0.00 (Å¬óäîãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬ÕôäÈÖôĀìÚ¬ÈØóÈèõËóÂóä=20.000ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñÃîÈîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØö¬ÕôäÈÖôĀìÚ¬ÈØóÈ

èõËóÂóäØö¬ÂôìÚÕĂìÿÜĆÚÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5= äîãæñ60 Ã÷ÚăÜ ÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 1.667)

/



collegetimes

Sticky Note

20% score regarding the number of faculty results in a poor 1.667 rating in this category (60% is passing)


5.005.00

4.004.00

5.00

1.67




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ đ 3.51

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Đ 80%



0.00 0.00 ÝæÂóäÜäñÿâõÚÉóÂÅèóâß÷ÈßîĂÉÃîÈÚóãÉóÈØö¬âöÖ¬îÝúëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóÖäö āØÿîÂ ÖóâÂäîÛTQF ÿÊæö¬ã

(ÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ Ĕ)= 4.050

/

0.00 0.00 (ÉôÚèÚÝúëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóÖäöØö¬ăÕÈóÚØôìäøî

ÜäñÂîÛîóËößîõëäñ=7/ÉôÚèÚÛòÔÒõÖØö¬ÖîÛĀÛÛëôäèÉ =8)ÿØ¬óÂòÛäîãæñ87.50 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛäîãæñ 100 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5 ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚòÚ ÅñĀÚÚÉ÷ÈÿØ¬ó

ÂòÛ 4.375

/



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding students who graduate and a find a job successfully in their field, the score was 87.50% resulting in a strong rating of 4.375 in this category

collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding the feeling that employers (companies) have after hiring WUT graduates, the result was a strong 4.050


4.05

4.38




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Ē 10%



0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ×¬èÈÚôìÚòÂÃîÈÝæÈóÚØö¬Öößõâß°ìäøîÿÝãĀßä¬ÃîÈÝúëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóāØÿØ¬óÂòÛ 1.75/ÉôÚèÚÝúëôÿäĆÉÂóäé÷ÂêóäñÕòÛÜäõÎÎóāØØòÈìâÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 7) =äîãæñ25.000ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñ 25 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚÿØ¬óÂòÛ

5.000

/




5.00




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 3.1 6ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 3.2 5ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 4.1 7

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Đē 2.5 score




- - 7 /- - 6 /- - 8 /

0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ×¬èÈÚôìÚòÂÃîÈ

îóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôÿØ¬óÂòÛ 69.000/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôØòÈìâÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 15.000 )ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 4.600ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÕòËÚöÅùÔáóßîóÉóäã°ÿÜĆÚ 6 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚÉ÷ÈÿØ¬óÂòÛ

3.833

/

- - 5 /



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding how many teachers are full-time faculty, the rating is 4.6 but after comparing all quality indexes the summary rating is 3.833


5.005.005.00

3.83

5.00




0.00 0.00 (ÉôÚèÚÿÈõÚëÚòÛëÚùÚÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîëäóÈëääÅ°ÉóÂáóãĂÚĀæñáóãÚîÂë×óÛòÚ =112,439.25/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉô=15.00)

=7,495.95 ÛóØÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬ó

ÅñĀÚÚÿÖĆâ 5 =25,000.00 ÛóØÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚØö¬ăÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ 1.499)

/



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding research funding WUT declared 112,439.25 baht for a total of just 15 full-time faculty/researchers, equal to only 7,495.95 baht per researcher. The Thai government says each researcher should be allocated at least 25,000 baht to do proper university research at WUT, resulting in a poor rating of 1.499


1.50




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Ĕ 3%



0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ×¬èÈÚôìÚòÂÃîÈÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîÈóÚëäóÈëääÅ°Øö¬Öößõâß°ìäøîÿÝãĀßä¬ÿØ¬óÂòÛ1.250/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉôØòÈìâÕÿØ¬óÂòÛ

15.000) = äîãæñ8.333 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñ10 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ ÕòÈÚòÚÅñĀÚÚÿØ¬óÂòÛ

4.167

/



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding published research in journals, per the amount of full-time faculty WUT should publish at least 10 (ratio) papers, but having published 8.333 (ratio) results in a strong rating of 4.167


4.17




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ ĕ 10%



0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÃîÈÉôÚèÚÈóÚèõÉòãìäøîÈóÚëäóÈëääÅ°Øö¬ÚôăÜĂËÜäñāãËÚ°

=1.000/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòãÜäñÉô ÅÔñÙùäÂõÉĀæñÿØÅāÚāæãö

=15.000)= äîãæñ 6.667 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñ20 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5

ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöÅ¬óÿØ¬óÂòÛ 1.667

/



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding the amount of research projects with real world value and immediate benefits the score is 6.667 out of a recommended 20 resulting in a poor research benefit rating of 1.667


1.67




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Ė 8%




0.00 0.00 (Ýæäèâ×¬èÈÚôìÚòÂÃîÈÝæÈóÚèõËóÂóäØö¬ăÕäòÛäîÈÅùÔáóß =1.500/ÉôÚèÚîóÉóäã°ÜäñÉôĀæñÚòÂèõÉòã

ÜäñÉôØòÈìâÕ =15.000)= äîãæñ10.000 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñ10 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöÅ¬óÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5.000

/

- - 5 /- - 5 /



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding academic quality the score is 10.000 resulting in a perfect 5.000 rating


5.00

5.005.00





ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 8.1 5ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĒ 3.70ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 7.4 5

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĐ 4

ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ ė 25%


ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Đď 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 6.1 4ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ Ę 4



- - 4 /- - 5 /

- - 7 /4.42 1.00 4.420 /

- - 6 /

- - 5 /

0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÃîÈÉôÚèÚāÅäÈÂóä/ÂõÉÂääâÛäõÂóäØóÈèõËóÂóä Øö¬ÚôâóĂËĂÚÂóä

ßòÓÚóÂóäÿäöãÚÂóäëîÚĀæñ

ÂóäèõÉòã=1.000/ÉôÚèÚāÅäÈÂóä/ÂõÉÂääâÛäõÂóäØóÈèõËóÂóäØòÈìâÕ =1.000)=âöÅ¬óÿØ¬óÂòÛ äîãæñ100.000 ÿâø¬îÿØöãÛÅ¬óäîãæñ30 ÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5

ÅñĀÚÚ É÷ÈâöÅ¬óÿØ¬óÂòÛ 5.000

/

- - 7 /

- - 5 /- - 5 /- - 5 /



collegetimes

Sticky Note

Regarding academic development for learning the rating is a perfect 5.000


4.005.00

5.004.425.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.005.005.00




ÖòèÛ¬ÈËö ëâé. Øö¬ ĐĔ 3.51 scoreÖòèÛ¬ÈËöØö¬ 9.1 7

ÿÊæö¬ãÅñĀÚÚäèâØùÂÖòèÛ¬ÈËöÃîÈØùÂîÈÅ°ÜäñÂîÛ



0.00 0.00 (ÝæäèâÅñĀÚÚÜäñÿâõÚÜäñÂòÚÅùÔáóßÂóä

é÷ÂêóáóãĂÚāÕãÖÚëòÈÂòÕ=4.486/ÉôÚèÚÜö =1Üö)

=4.486

/- - 5 /




4.493.00

4.45



wut: quality assessment fraud #1

Documents

r nnnn6

oo rn nnno4

poor rating

strong rating

nonrnonoon onnonon oo

excellent rating

summary rating

poor research benefit