News & Event

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS: ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

1. Quality Assurance & Accreditation Status

a.

World (e.g., Quacquarelli Symonds, Times Higher Education)(3) 4-5 stars in QS/ Upper 25% World Ranking(2) 2-3 stars in QS/Upper 50% in World Ranking(1) 0-1 star in QS/Upper 75% in the World Ranking

Remarks

b.

Regional/National Ranking University(3) upper 25% Regional/ National Ranking(2) upper 50% Regional/ National Ranking(1) upper 75% Regional/ National Ranking

Remarks

c.

Institutional accreditation recognized by the competent government agencies/ organization(3) The institutional accreditation is recognized by competent regional/ international organization(2) The institutional accreditation is recognized by competent national/local organization(1) The institution is not accredited

Remarks

d.

International Standardization Organization (ISO)(3) ISO certified for the past 6 years(2) ISO certified for the past 3 years(1) Non-ISO certified

Remarks

2. Complementarity and compatibility with BSU

a.

Vision and Mission(3) The Vision and Mission of both institutions greatly complement and compatible with each other(2) The Vision and Mission of both institutions moderately complement and compatible with each other(1) The Vision and Mission of both institutions do not/slightly complement and compatible with each other

Remarks

b.

Academic Programs(3) The academic programs of both institutions greatly complement and compatible with each other; with more advanced programs(2) The academic programs of both institutions moderately complement and compatible with each other(1) The academic programs of both institutions do not/slightly complement and compatible with each other

Remarks

c.

Research Programs(3) The research programs of both institutions greatly complement and compatible with each other; with more advanced programs.(2) The research programs of both institutions moderately complement and compatible with each other.(1) The research programs of both institutions do not/slightly complement and compatible with each other.

Remarks

d.

Extension Programs(3) The extension programs of both institutions greatly complement and compatible with each other; with more advanced programs.(2) The extension programs of both institutions moderately complement and compatible with each other.(1) The extension programs of both institutions do no/slightly complement and compatible with each other.

Remarks

e.

Production Programs(3) The production programs of both institutions greatly complement and compatible with each other; with more advanced programs(2) The production programs of both institutions moderately complement and compatible with each other(1) The production programs of both institutions do not/slightly complement and compatible with each other

Remarks

3. Compliance with national program standards

a.

Program Curricula(3) 76-100% of the academic programs were accredited/ complied with national standards(2) 50-75% of the academic programs were accredited/ complied with national standards(1) <50% of the academic programs were accredited/ complied with national standards

Remarks

4. Presence of partners/ linkages

a.

International Partners/Linkages(3) majority of its international partners/linkages are high income countries or highly ranked/recognized institutions/ organizations/ agencies(2) majority of its international partners/linkages are middle income countries or middle ranked/ moderately recognized institutions/ organizations/ agencies(1) absent or majority of its international partners/linkages are lower income countries or lower rank/fairly recognized institutions/ organizations/ agencies

Remarks

b.

Internationalization Programs(3) with internationalization programs that greatly complement with/priority of the University(2) with internationalization programs that slightly complement with/ priority of the University(1) absent or with internationalization programs that do not complement with/less priority of the University

Remarks

5. Recognition of, and respect for national differences

a.

International Affiliations(3) with international affiliations that highly recognized and respect national differences(2) with international affiliations that highly recognized and respect national differences(1) Absent or with international affiliations that fairly recognized and respect national differences

Remarks

b.

Cross-cultural & Inclusiveness Programs(3) with programs that greatly recognize cross cultural and inclusiveness(2) with programs that moderately recognize cross cultural and inclusiveness(1) Absent or with programs that fairly recognize cross cultural and inclusiveness

Remarks

6. Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals

a.

Alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)(3) Highly implement SDG programs/ programs are highly aligned with SDGs(2) moderately implement SDG programs/ programs are moderately aligned with SDGs(1) Absent or slightly implement SDG programs/ programs are slightly aligned with SDGs

Remarks

7. Willingness to make collaborative decisions; and share responsibility and resources

a.

Student Development Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on student development programs(2) Moderately willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on student development programs(1) Unwilling/ slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on student development programs

Remarks

b.

Human Resources Development Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on human resources development programs(2) Moderately willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on human resources development programs(1) Unwilling/ slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on human resources development programs

Remarks

c.

Academic Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on academic programs(2) Moderately willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on academic programs(1) Unwilling/slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on academic programs

Remarks

d.

Research Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on research programs(2) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on research programs(1) Unwilling/ slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on research programs

Remarks

e.

Extension Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on extension programs(2) Moderately willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on extension programs(1) Unwilling/ slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on extension programs

Remarks

f.

Production Programs(3) Very much willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on production programs(2) Moderately willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on production programs(1) Unwilling/ slightly willing to collaborate and share responsibility and resources on research production

Remarks

TOTAL SCORE

QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OFFICE

A. Profile of Potential International Partner

B. Lead Persons’ Information

C. Detailed Description of Potential Partners

1. Quality Assurance & Accreditation Status

2. Complementarity and Compatibility with BSU

3. Compliance of Program Curricula with National Program Standards/Accreditation

4. International Partners/Linkages/Internationalization Programs

This may be used as an indicator to determine the potential partner’s commitment to providing internal funding.

5. Cross-Cultural and Inclusiveness Programs

This may be used to show recognition of, and respect for national differences, and efforts (e.g., gender, religion, cultural activities, PWD access, outreach programs)

6. List Sustainable Development Programs

7. Proposed Programs/Projects/Activities for Collaboration with Potential Partner

CONSOLIDATED BY: