UNSW Asia: the conjuncture of events

Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, looks back on the UNSW Asia debacle. One of the question that I asked in my post immediately after UNSW's announcement was about the real reason for UNSW's sudden departure. Much news has been reported since, but none of the explanations can fully explain it. Hilmer points to the low enrollment numbers as the reason and the fact that the Singapore Economic Development Board wasn't willing to accept their rescue plan.

Today it was also reported that high fees led to the fall of the Singapore Campus. This has been said by many others but it can't be a sufficient reason. Other senior academics at UNSW Asia blamed a lack of marketing for its demise. Sure, this might be part of the explanation as well. Simon Marginson of the University of Melbourne University explained that the business plan was plain bad and based on too rosy a set of enrollment projections.

I think we have to conclude that there is not one single reason for UNSW's pull-out. It is more a concurrence of circumstances that led to a major fiasco. But why hasn't this been foreseen by a big professional organisation like UNSW? Hilmer basically inherited the whole situation and the only thing he could be blamed for is for opening the campus at all at the start of this year. The establishment of the UNSW Asia campus of course goes further back in time. At least until 2003.

It is interesting to see that the whole development of the UNSW Asia idea has coincided with a period of rather instable governance. For a period of ten years the university was under the energetic leadership of John Niland. Niland has a good relation with Singapore and extensive knowledge about the region. He is currently Member of the Board of Trustees of the Singapore Management University. However, keeping in mind that UNSW was only approached by EDB in 2003 to consider setting up a campus in Singapore, it is unlikely that Niland was involved as a VC.

This means that the whole process, from EDB invitation to the closure in May 2007, took place in no more than 4 years. In these 4 years however, the UNSW has had 3 Vice-Chancellors! The first contacts with EDB have been with Rory Hume, now Provost at the University of California. Hume became VC in 2002 and resigned in 2004, because of the way he handled a case of academic misconduct in the university. Hume's successor was Mark Wainwright who held the VC Office from July 2004 until his retirement in June 2006. This must have been the period where the main negotiations with the EDB have taken place and where the plans for the campus were formed. It was under Wainwright that UNSW Asia was officially launched, that Greg Whittred was appointed president of UNSW Asia and two deputy presidents were announced.

So in 2006 Fred Hilmer left his position as CEO of John Fairfax Holdings and became VC of UNSW. When he came into office, UNSW Asia basically was a 'fait accompli'. Hilmer has never been a true believer in the Singapore venture, but he did not really have the option to pull out since all agreements were made and everyone was set to go. The Singaporean Straight Times (26 May, 2007) reported that 'the death knell for the Singapore campus was sounded the very week that Prof Hilmer took over on June 19, 2006'. He pulled out eventually because financial risks would steeply rise with the construction of a city campus in 2008.

A leading actor in the whole saga - and the one that actually signed the MOU with the EDB in April 2004 - is Former Deputy VC for International & Development, John Ingleson. He held this position since 2001 and was also CEO of the international education, training and consultancy arm of UNSW, New South Global. While he was an outspoken advocate of UNSW Asia - and of global academe in general - he seems to be the most silent factor in its aftermath.

Ingleson left UNSW after vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer restructured the university's top level a year ago. He is now Deputy VC I & D at the University of Western Sydney and also member of the Board of Directors of IDP (a company offering student recruiting and testing services and is part-owned by the Australian universities). The same company also undertook a program-level marketing research for UNSW Asia and was the exclusive recruiter of international students for UNSW Asia.

My two cents? A bad business plan, pursued by an over-enthusiastic DVC who overestimated economic opportunities and underestimated risks in the global higher education market. While there were plenty of reasons to slow down the development of UNSW Asia and the individuals pushing it, this never happened because clear and stable leadership at the very top was lacking at that time. By the time Hilmer inherited the situation, it was a done deal. He tried to make a deal with the Singaporeans but they didn't bite. Option 1: run the risk of even higher costs because of the construction of a campus; Option 2: get out, now costs are still bearable. May 23...Press conference...option 2...closed.

'competitive' salaries in academia

In both the Netherlands and Australia the salaries of the top university leaders lead to controversy. The Australian reports that all but one of the leaders of Australia’s Group of 8 Universities earn more than 600,000 Australian Dollars (378,000 Euros). Top earner was John Hay of the University of Queensland with 655,000 Euros. But the Australian found even higher figures for La Trobe University where someone (probably the former VC) received over 930,000 Euros!

In the Netherlands, the salaries and bonuses in the public sector are a hot issue as well. Many claim that the Prime Minister’s salary should be the norm for others in the public sector. In the Netherlands that is a mere 171,000 Euros (John Howard’s salary was recently increased to 208,000 Euros). But most university leaders in the Netherlands make significantly more than that.

The new Dutch Minister for Education this week showed his discontent about the managerialism in education and the accompanying rise in salaries. He observes that most of them enjoyed enormous salary increases when they came into their current positions. And I am sure he is right about that (although that is not the case for all of them). One of the most visible cases has been the one in my own Alma Mater. Their top level managers were given a 31% salary increase, which sparked a reaction of the Minister claiming that this was ‘unbelievable’. This increase brought the salary of the Chairman of the Executive Board (more or less the CEO of the University) to 171,000 Euros. In comparison, the lowest earning VC in Australia, David Battersby of the University of Balarat (poor guy), earned over 200,000 Euros!

So how do the Dutch university CEOs compare with the Australian Vice-Chancellors? Basically, compared to Australia, the Dutch salaries are still very modest. Here is the list of the top 6 for both countries:

Netherlands (Source: Intermediair (pdf); in Euros)
1. Aalt Dijkhuizen	University of Wageningen	307,520
2. Sijbolt Noorda	University of Amsterdam	284,400
3. Rene Smit	Vrije Universiteit	245,900
4. Hands van Luijk	Delft Univ. of Technology	240,000
5. Yvonne van Rooy	University of Utrecht	233,000
6. Jos Elbers	Hogeschool Inholland	228,928
Australia (Source: The Australian; converted to Euros)
1. John Hay	University of Queensland	655,000
2. Gavin Brown	University of Sydney	454,000
3. Fred Hilmer	University of NSW	378,000 (+95,000)
4. Steven Schwartz	Macquarie University	378,000 (+63,000)
5. John Rickard	Central Queensland Univ.	425,000 - 434,500
6. Glyn Davis	Melbourne University	384,000

Don’t get me wrong! This is no justification for the Dutch salary hikes. More like a condemnation of the Australian salaries. The argument is usually that salaries have to be competitive. This argument is put forward just a bit more often when people talk about managers than when they talk about academics and professors. Australian professorial salaries average A$120,000 (75,600 Euros). I am not sure how much it is in the Netherlands but I think it will be slightly higher, or at least similar. Let’s just say that the huge gap between managerial and academic salaries in Australia better not be taken as an example for the Netherlands.

Higher Education Funding in Indonesia

The Jakarta Post reported that the Indonesian Director General for Higher Education, Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro would increase the subsidies for universities. The government would disburse a Rp 13.5 trillion (US$1.5 billion) fund next year to subsidize costs at state-run and private universities. Good news for Indonesian higher education? Of course, every extra dollar or rupiah is welcome. But...

He admitted that the increase would not cover education costs for university students. "The amount is too small to meet the demands of poor families who want to have access to higher education," he said. In recent years the government has decreased its subsidies for state-run universities and encouraged them to find their own funding sources. As a result, some state-run universities began offering courses for exorbitant fees.

Starting from 2000, Indonesia’s leading four institutions have – in financial terms – basically been privatised. Institut Teknologi Bandung, Institut Pertanian Bogor, Universitas Indonesia and Universitas Gadjah Mada received the so-called BHMN status (Badan Hukum Milik Negara or ‘state owned legal entities’). The other public universities in Indonesia are meant to follow this path in the future. Universitas Sumatera Utara (USU) received the status in 2003, followed by the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in early 2004. BHMN meant greater autonomy and autonomy was necessary because the universities, under the Suharto regime, suffered from a serious lack of academic freedom. But autonomy did not just mean academic autonomy, it also meant financial autonomy. And this basically translated into budget cuts. These cuts were so severe that some of the universities now only receive about a quarter of their financial means from the government, where it used to be nearly 100%!

The chronic underfunding of Indonesian education was acknowledged by the Megawati regime. At that time the pledge to allocate 20% of the government budget on education was even incorporated in the constitution. But what is going on in reality? As we see below, Indonesia’s spending on education as % of GDP has slowly decreased in the early years of this century. While in 2003, Indonesia spent only 0.9% of its GDP on education, Malaysia spent nearly 8 %!

For all graphs: Red = Indonesia; Blue = Malaysia

So is the 20% objective unreasonable? For sure, the 20% objective is far from achieved in Indonesia. Malaysia however spent even more than 20%, while Indonesia did not even reach 10% (no data for 2000 & 2003). However, there has been some improvement after 2002. For 2006, the expenditure on education is 11.8 % of the budget. Some improvement, but still far from the promised 20%.

For higher education, the situation becomes even more sever if you see that Indonesia spends relatively less of its education money on higher education, compared again with Malaysia. For Malaysia, between 30 and 35% of its education budget went to higher education between 2000 and 2003. For Indonesia that is less than 25%.

What is also interesting to see in this respect is where the money is spent. Below you can see that the majority of Indonesian spending is current expenditure. For Indonesia that is over 80%, of which nearly 100% goes to salaries. For Malaysia current expenditure is around 50% and much less of this goes to salaries. Capital expenditure for Indonesia thus is very low, pointing to a serious underinvestment in Indonesia’s universities.

What has been the result of all this? Basically two things. For Indonesia it has led to rigorous inequality for higher education. In the past decades the government has done a good job in eliminating inequality in elementary education. But if we look at data from Triaswati and Roeslan (2003), presented by Nizam in a recent UNESCO report on Higher Education in Southeast Asia (PDF; 4.6 MB), we can see that inequality increases with the level of education. While 30.9% of the richest quintile receives higher education, of the poorest quintile, only 3.3% is that lucky.

The second result is that the autonomous BHMN universities are becoming ever more entrepreneurial. This in itself is not a problem and it is seen in nearly all countries. The Indonesian BHMN universities have undergone such a drastic change in just a few years but have coped with it relatively well. But they are seriously underfunded, especially if we consider that the demand upon them has grown. Increasingly they are expected to deliver high quality research and, much more than their Malaysian counterparts, rely heavily on the market and the private sector to acquire research funding. Somewhere along the line you will have to ask whether the political domination has been replaced by the domination of the market.

In this light the increase of subsidies can be seen as too little too late. Maybe it is never too late to invest in education, but an increase from 12.9 trillion to 13.5 trillion Rupiahs is definitely too little!

(data for the first four graphs are from the UNESCO education database)

Excellence for Productivity 2

Two days ago I had a post on the Dutch report Excellence for Productivity of the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. A good study that deserved some more attention. I wrote a Dutch article on the outcomes of the report for ScienceGuide:

Adriaan Hofman van de RuG presenteerde recent nog een pleidooi voor meer evidence based discussies in het onderwijs. In dit licht, moet het onderzoek 'Excellence and Productivity' verwelkomd worden door belanghebbenden en belangstellenden in het Nederlandse onderwijs. Terwijl vaak maar aangenomen wordt dat excellentie bijdraagt aan economische groei en dat in Nederland het 'niet-boven-het-maaiveld' syndroom de ontwikkeling van talent in de weg staat, is het goed dat deze assumpties kritisch onder de loep worden genomen door het CPB. Kort samengevat laat het onderzoek zien dat ‘top skills’ belangrijk zijn voor productiviteit en dat Nederland gemiddeld gezien zeer goed scoort op skills maar dat het toplaagje het relatief slecht doet. Met andere woorden: we hebben relatief slimme domme leerlingen en relatief domme slimme leerlingen. Daarover later meer; eerst even de media aandacht.

Ten eerste werd mij al snel duidelijk dat ook ‘evidence’ niet altijd tot de juiste discussies leidt. In de media leek het of het hoger onderwijs hier ter discussie stond. Een paar voorbeelden. De Volkskrant: "niet het vmbo is het probleem van het Nederlandse onderwijs, maar de universiteiten en hogescholen"; Nederlands Dagblad: "op de universiteiten in Nederland is middelmatigheid troef"; en dan Elsevier: " als het hoger onderwijs geen ruimte schept voor toptalent, dan wordt Nederland een tweederangs natie". Nou nou...

Wat is echter het geval? Een deel van het rapport kijkt naar het slimme toplaagje van Nederland door te kijken naar PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), naar TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) en naar de IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey). In de samenvatting wordt met name verwezen naar de PISA resultaten van 2003. Nu wordt de IALS test afgenomen onder 14-65 jarigen maar de PISA en de TIMSS tests onder respectievelijk 15 en 13 jarigen. Het CPB is hier duidelijk over, maar verschillende media lijken het ontbreken van een brilljant toplaagje onder de 15 jarigen volledig in de schoenen te willen schuiven van het hoger onderwijs. Voordat deze 15 jarige ook maar één stap heeft gezet in een universiteit of hogeschool.

Een tweede methodologisch puntje is dat men enigzins voorzichtig moet zijn met ‘evidence’. Het onderzoek over de relatie tussen de ‘top skills’ en hun economische bijdrage zit nog vol met onzekerheden, mede omdat deze skills moeilijk te meten zijn, maar zeker ook omdat een groot aantal factoren deze relatie kan beinvloeden. Het CPB is daar wederom duidelijk in, zie met name de voorzichtigheid waarmee uitspraken worden gedaan over deze relatie in hoofdstuk twee van het rapport.

Maar dan de betekenis van de uitomsten. Uiteraard vragen de resultaten van het rapport allereerst om veranderingen in het lager en middelbaar onderwijs. Wat deze veranderingen ook mogen zijn, het feit dat Nederland gemiddeld aan de top staat (en niet middelmatig is!) moet beschouwd worden als een groot goed. Zolang het Nederlandse toplaagje nog niet de mogelijkheid krijgt om te excelleren in deze fase, ligt er des te meer druk op het hoger onderwijs om dit talent alsnog naar boven te halen. Niet zozeer – of in elk geval niet alléén – omdat dit misschien kan bijdragen aan de economische groei van Nederland, maar omdat elke leerling of student het recht heeft op onderwijs dat het hem of haar mogelijk maakt zich maximaal te ontplooien. In hoeverre gebeurt dit? En hoe kan dat verbeterd worden?

De gemengde resultaten van de selectie aan de poort laten zien dat een laagje elitair onderwijs niet van de ene op de andere dag kan worden gecreëerd. Overigens ben ik niet direct een voorstander van selectie aan de Bachelor-poort, mede vanwege de problematiek rondom selectiecriteria. En er wordt immers al geselecteerd door het Nederlandse middelbaar onderwijs. Maar er bestaan in het Nederlandse HO wel degelijk initiatieven om talent beter te benutten. Er wordt al rijk geëxperimenteerd met zogenaamde Honours trajecten, en tevens zijn er enkele ‘elite’ colleges (UCU, Roosevelt) redelijk succesvol gebleken en zijn er gelijksoortige initiatieven op komst. Ondanks (de mythe van) het gelijkheidsdenken, wordt het langzaam maar zeker meer geoorloofd – en gewaardeerd – om je hoofd boven het maaiveld uit te steken. Dit mag je best even de tijd geven. Ik verwacht met name dat de Honours trajecten hier een waardevol instrument kunnen zijn. Zij die iets extra willen doen, moeten de mogelijkheid krijgen en gestimuleerd worden, maar moeten daar dan later ook voor beloond worden. En laat de verschillende universiteiten maar experimenteren met verschillende Honours modellen.

Het instellen van de BaMa structuur is natuurlijk wel de gelegenheid om selectie in te voeren voor het Masters traject. Maar ook hier zal dat niet direct leiden tot Hermans’ Topmasters. Gezien het diepgewortelde gelijkheidsdenken – wat het Nederlandse HO ver heeft gebracht – zal het een tijd duren voordat top-Masters boven het maaiveld uitkomen. Het label ‘top’ creëer je niet, maar dat moet je verdienen! Wat hierbij vaak vergeten wordt is dat er ook een motivatie moet zijn om zich voor zo’n top-Master in te schrijven (en er extra voor te betalen). Leveren ze echt top kwaliteit? Heb je meer kansen op de arbeidsmarkt? Zullen bedrijven en overheidsorganisaties een hoger startsalaris betalen? Of heeft de arbeidsmarkt eigenlijk geen idee over de diversiteit in Masters? Toenemende ranking van programmas en instellingen en het toenemende belang van (internationale) accreditatie zal dit process van differentiatie waarschijnlijk versnellen, met name in de meer professionele Masters. Maar waar het op neer komt is dat talent niet alleen ontwikkeld moet worden, maar ook erkend en gewaardeerd; door bedrijven en overheidsorganisaties, maar ook door universiteiten als toekomstige werkegevers!

Tenslotte betekent dit alles natuurlijk ook dat docenten meer oog moeten hebben voor de mogelijkheden van hun studenten, ook hun ‘slimme’ studenten. Er dient meer waarde te worden gehecht aan het onderwijs zelf en aan de onderwijsaspecten in de training van docenten (ofwel in het promotietraject). Daarnaast moet men natuurlijk vooral denken aan het vermijden van grote collegezalen en teveel administratieve lasten voor docenten. Een recent voorstel van Plasterk zou hier een belangrijke bijdrage aan kunnen leveren, nl. de Akademie-assistent. Behalve voor onderzoek zouden deze ook ingezet kunnen worden voor het onderwijs, min of meer volgens het Amerikaanse ‘teaching-assistent’ model.

Middelmatigheid is dus niet troef in het Nederlandse HO! Het CPB rapport biedt voldoende ‘evidence’ om lopende initiatieven verder te ontwikkelen en creatief na te denken over additionele maatregelen. Universiteiten en hogescholen lijken tot nu toe best in staat om dit zelf te doen. Maar laten we daarbij vooral niet vergeten dat – ondanks al het doemdenken – het Nederlandse (hoger) onderwijs gemiddeld gezien op een zeer hoog niveau staat.

Smart dumb people and dumb smart people

The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) published an interesting study yesterday. The report - Excellence for Productivity? - investigates the position of the Netherlands vis-a-vis other OECD countries in terms of their skill distribution.

The findings in short:

• The Dutch perform very well on average
• The 'not so bright' Dutch students are smart compared to their 'not so bright' counterparts in other countries.
• The smartest students in the Netherlands (the top (99th) percentile) are less brilliant than their brilliant counterparts in other OECD countries.

The findings mainly refer to pre-tertiary education. According to the CPB, the findings indicate that there is scope for improvement of skills at the right-hand side (the 'smart side') of the distribution. Therefore, policies that raise the Dutch performance at high- and top skill levels may improve Dutch productivity.

The (problematic?) balance between egalitarianism and excellence has been an issue in Dutch politics for the past years. And history shows that shifting the balance is easier planned than done, also in higher education. Measures like the selective admission of students or differentiation in student fees have not (yet) had the desired effects. However, various initiatives are being experimented with such as honours programmes and 'elite' colleges. Elitism isn't really a Dutch thing, I guess... Or is it?

Group of 8: Seizing the Opportunities

The Group of 8, the group of Australia's leading universities (or self proclaimed Ivy League) has today shared its vision on the future of Australian higher education, or better, what needs to be done to keep it dynamic and competitive. According to the Go8, the current system was designed for a past era and does no longer provide the right framework for universities to perform in a global knowledge economy (something that National University of Singapore president Shih Choon Fong seems to agree with).

The current Australian higher education and research system is under-resourced and over-regulated (hear hear!). But it is also under-planned and insufficiently diversified for the needs of contemporary Australia. The Go8 provides eight proposals that should increase the flexibility that the universities need to remain competitive and that will serve the Australian community:

An Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC)
The establishment of an Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), responsible for planning, resource allocation and regulation in respect of post-school education throughout Australia.

Student-driven higher education
Student access to undergraduate and graduate courses should be aided via a universal entitlement to an income-contingent loan and, for meritorious and needy students, via national tuition scholarships.

Mission-based block funding of universities
A new funding line, University-Community Partnerships, as a mechanism to correct for market failure in the event that student choice leaves neglected or dissipated some fields of knowledge that have national or regional importance. The ATEC should have the capacity to provide a number of places for designated ‘public interest’ courses for which the Government pays a community service obligation retainer.

National investment in university research
If Australia’s best universities are not going forward then Australia will be going backwards against international competitors. Therefore they suggest:
(i) National competitive peer-reviewed grants for research: by 2012 the amount of annual funding should be double its present value;
(ii) Adequate investment in research infrastructure: a rise in the Research Infrastructure Block Grants (RIBG);
(iii) National research hub & spokes arrangements; for this, a program is needed to provide Australian academics with access to research universities combined with support for the host universities;
(iv) International engagement of Australian university research: Australian researchers must be able to participate in international research platforms and networks.

Performance-based block funding for research
A new, tightly targeted research funding program would allocate block funds to universities, with funding agreements subject to rigorous seven year cyclical evaluations.

Research quality evaluation
A validated metrics-based approach to the assessment of research quality and its broader societal benefits should be adopted.

A dual system of assistance for research students
A gradual expansion of research training places which should be funded with the goal of raising the total number of domestic research degree students from some 22,000 to around 30,000 over five years.

Managing the transitions
During the transition period each university should retain its research funding at close to present levels through performance-based block grants.

I guess, with all the requests for extra funding, it is written in anticipation of an election win for Labor later this year. On the other hand, it pretty much continues the new public managment and accountability agenda of the last decades. I'll have a closer look soon and address some of the proposals at a later stage. For now, here is the full report: 'seizing the opportunities' (pdf).

America and the Bologna Process

The European process of harmonisation of degree structures is also causing discussions on the other side of the Atlantic. The participating countries have implemented (or are implementing) a three tier degree structure (Bachelor, Master, PhD). In most countries, the undergraduate phase will take three years. In my opinion, one reason for this rather short duration, is the fact that many countries - like the Netherlands - saw their previous 4 year degrees (doctorandus, licentiaat, magister and what have you) as equivalent to a Master's degree. And because governments did not want Bologna to lead to extra funding, they needed to stuff the Bachelor and Master into 4 years.

But what if you plan to do a Master's degree in the US, after your European three-year bachelor? According to Daniel Denecke of the US Council of Graduate Studies, resistance to recognizing three-year degrees at American graduate schools is rampant, although there were some trends toward acceptance of the new European model:

29 percent said they did not accept three-year undergraduate year degrees in 2005; that number dropped to 18 percent in 2006. In 2005, 9 percent said they’d offer provisional acceptance to applicants with three-year degrees, a number that fell to 4 percent in 2006. The percentage of universities that indicated they’d evaluate the degree for its equivalence rose from 40 to 49 percent in the year, while the percentage of institutions that consider a student’s competency on an individual basis increased from 22 to 29 percent.

"What we’re seeing is a trend line toward greater acceptance of three-year degrees and greater nuance as to how universities are able to establish the suitability of that student to succeed in a university."

But, as Inside HigherEd reports, in Europe academics are also debating the preparatory value of the three-year degree in itself. David Crosier, program director for the European University Association:

"Although things are changing quickly, there’s still a sense among many, that everyone in a university who gets a bachelor’s should go on and get a master’s as well. This is maybe a problematic issue, given that the master’s was developed to be a specific cycle with its own goals, and that those goals should be built around the labor market so that people will have sufficient skills to move out of higher education if they want to"

It touches a few fundamental issues. First of all, is three years of higher education enough to enter the labor market? Like Crosier said and other surveys have shown, both employers and students in Europe still see the four (3+1) year master's degree as the standard. This actually reduces the Bologna reform to some extra flexibility in the last year. On the other hand, such changes need time...

The other question it brings forward: is a three year European Bachelor's degree equivalent to a four year US Bachelor's degree? European programmes are usually specialised from the beginning, while the US degrees provide more general education. In a comment on an earlier Inside HigherEd article on this issue, someone (from the US) claims:

"Our college students in their freshman year typically not only have to focus on the general education they didn’t receive in high school, but on the basic language and study skills they never received at all."

That's probably overstated, but it is true that US students receive more general education in their university studies. Whether this is necessary to 'catch up' or whether this means that US students will have a broader body of knowledge, I don't know. Most probably it depends very much on the college that they attend (and the high school they attended before that). At the same time, it is an illusion to think that with the harmonisation of degrees, the degrees in all European countries and all European universities will be of the same standard.

Malaysia as an Education Hub

The UNSW debacle in Singapore and the exit of Johns Hopkins last year, have dealt a serious blow to the Global Schoolhouse strategy of the Singapore government. Singapore’s neighbor Malaysia announced a similar strategy last year. With this strategy, Malaysia becomes one of the most interesting examples of the way that higher education is globalizing nowadays. A major exporter as well as importer of higher education, with foreign universities within its borders and Malay universities establishing branches outside Malaysia.

First of all, Malaysia has long been sending many of their students and university staff abroad, especially for postgraduate studies, because their own system could not absorb the increase of students in the last decades. In addition, the racial quota for public universities to enroll Malay forced a lot of students from Chinese and Indian backgrounds to pursue their higher education abroad. The last decade has seen a sharp rise in private universities and colleges that have been able to absorb many of these students and the Malay that were not accepted in the public sector. Despite this, the flow of Malaysian students abroad – especially to the English speaking countries – has remained substantial (see table).

Malaysian students abroad 1999-2004

In addition to sending students abroad to pursue their education, the Malaysian government has also admitted higher education institutions into Malaysia in order to meet the increasing demand of higher education in the country. The establishment of such branch campuses has to fulfill a wide range of legal requirement (on ownership issues, but also on the content of education), but this has not kept universities from establishing these branches. The best known examples are Monash University, Curtin and Swinburne from Australia and Nottingham University from the UK. Although these partnerships were usually based on so-called sandwich programmes (where part was done in the home country of the university), they now also offer full degrees in Malaysia.

But in recent years, both the flows of students as well as the flows of institutions are no longer one way but now go both ways. Although public universities in Malaysia do not undertake activities abroad – and probably they are not allowed to – the private ones seem to become more and more active. You can now actually obtain a Malaysian degree in London, offered by the Lim Kok Wing University, well known in Malaysia for its IT and Design programmes. And this university is not just a little office somewhere in London but is established in a beautiful old English building. But Lim Kok Wing did not stop in London. It’s also the first Asian university to establish a branch campus in Africa, in Botswana to be precise. Recently, other education institutions are following and are also expanding abroad.

And now the Malaysian government wants to make Malaysia a true education hub for the region, more or less like its southern neighbor. The Ministry of Higher Education has set a target of 100,000 students for 2010. Growth will probably mainly be sought in the region and in the Middle East. Together with Singapore, Malaysia probably offers the best quality higher education in Southeast Asia, although Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia are catching up. Due to language (and cultural/religious) issues, Malaysia is popular for Indonesian students, especially for those that cannot get into the local public universities in Indonesia and cannot afford the top private ones or higher education abroad. For Chinese students Malaysia might be popular because of the widespread Chinese influences in Malay society, more apparent though in the private institutions than in the public ones. More recently, especially after 9-11, Malaysia has also become a popular destination for Middle Eastern students. Yesterday, the Star reported on an agreement between Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed and his Saudi counterpart Dr Khaled Mohamed Al-Anqari on sending the Saudi students to Malaysian universities(*). In addition to the Middle East, students coming from Africa (especially Libya, Sudan and Kenya) are also on the rise (see table; click to enlarge).

Foreign Students in Malaysia 1999-2003

To reach the goal of 100,000 international students, the government will need to double the intake of foreign students. There are obviously pros and cons to a strategy like this. For many, a first reaction would be to ask why a government wants to increase the number of international students if it barely has the capacity to meet the demand of its own people? On the other hand, it can generate extra financial resources (if the fees for foreign students are profitable) by which the education of the Malaysian population can be supported. Obviously creating more multicultural campus will also have more intangible positive effects. And the quality of education can increase if these foreign students will be of such quality that they will positively influence the academic atmosphere and quality in the universities. And of course there are the economic effects through spending and consumption from the students and through the new jobs that are created for such an expanding higher education sector.

So...should the Singapore case make the Malaysian government nervous? Maybe not yet, but they better keep an eye on the developments in their neighboring city state. Malaysia’s plans are not as ambitious as Singapore’s ‘grand’ strategies and they are less dependent on foreign providers than is the case in Singapore. But I hope they will not become obsessed with the projected number of 100,000, and instead just focus on the overall quality of their higher education. Then the foreign students will follow automatically...

_________________________________________________________
(*) A small footnote...not directly related but important enough to mention.

Saudi government officials have been traveling the world for the past months in order to find ‘a conducive environment’ for their students to study. Especially because it was getting harder for them to get visas in the UK and the US. I remember that one of their officials visited Australian campuses as well, in order to ‘ínspect’ the universities here. I have not heard anything about this issue since...maybe the Australian culture was not considered very conducive by these government leaders, that always know best what is good for ‘their’ citizens...

But even Malaysia was not perfect. Saudi female students had specific requirements: “They have to travel with their chaperone who are either their male family members or husbands, so visas can be a problem. Another issue is dressing – some female students want to keep their faces covered.” The Minister said he would look into these issues... Covering the faces is not allowed in Malaysian public universities. And I think universities shouldn’t change their values just to benefit more from the international higher education market. Believe me, I work in Australia, so I should know!

Questions on the UNSW ASIA debacle

After three months in operation, the Singapore adventure of the University of New South Wales has come to an end. Another 22 million Singapore dollars down the drain. The decision to establish a branch campus in Singapore was taken in 2005 and already led to some commotion at that time (see this post). In 2005, UNSW from Australia and the University of Warwick from the UK were the only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government (through its Economic Development Board, EDB) to set up a fully fledged independent teaching and research institution offering undergraduate degrees (the UNSW ASIA website has been taken down but click here for some info from the old website and here for some facts).

At that time, the senate of Warwick declined the offer of the Singapore government. The official reason for the Warwick senate to vote against the venture was the big financial risk. An additional reason however was the concern about the lack of academic freedom. UNSW had a different opinion, after all there was "no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country".

UNSW opened the doors of its Asia Campus at the beginning of the 2007 academic year, planning to reach a population of up to 15,000 students on the long term. But the campus will be closed down after only one semester:

Before making this decision, the University has explored an extensive range of options. However the enrollment numbers for 2007 did not meet our expectations, and this has caused us to revise our projections. The decision to close down is a difficult one but it is the prudent course of action to take.

UNSW Vice Chancellor, Professor Fred Hilmer inherited the situation when he became VC in 2006. In a press conference in the Straits Times video news he explains the UNSW decision to pull out (see the whole video here):

The economics of the campus, without significant support made it impossible to continue. While we had support for the initial concept from the EDB, as the enrollment played out and as the concept had to be changed, the risk of the venture increased.

The Economic Development Board stated that it regrets the decision of UNSW. Mr Ko Kheng Hwa, Managing Director, EDB said:

We regret that UNSW has decided to close the Singapore campus. EDB has been fully committed and has worked closely with UNSW from day one towards the establishment of its Singapore campus. EDB will push ahead with our efforts to realise Singapore’s Global Schoolhouse vision. We are fully committed to developing Singapore into a premier education hub comprising a rich diversity of high quality education institutions and programmes from all over the world.

UNSW Asia had only 140 students enrolled in its first semester, 100 of them being Singapore residents. The University had a target of 300 students for the first year. This all leaves me with two big questions:

1. What is the real reason? If the target was 300 and the enrollment was 140, would you stop an operation - that has been planned for two years and in which 17.5 million Australian dollars is invested - just after a few months? Of course not! This is just too abrupt. After investing this amount, you would at least try for a few years. Somehow I have the idea that there is more going on, but I can't figure out what it is.

2. Public universities and their private ventures. I am sure that UNSW and UNSW Asia keep separate books. But somehow UNSW, an Australian public university, will be affected by the costs of the Singaporese adventure. This discussion has come up in relation to the South African branch campus of Monash university as well. It clearly shows the risk of letting public organizations operate privately overseas. Of course, UNSW will argue that their Australian activities will not suffer from the UNSW Asia debacle. But the money has to come from somewhere. The costs are even likely to rise because UNSW has been so decent to offer their UNSW Asia students a place at UNSW in Sydney and will make scholarships available.

Two pressing questions. Whether we will ever know the answer to the first one? I don't know. But I hope the second one will be discussed because it addresses a fundamental issue.

UPDATE: look at my recent post on this issue for some explanations

Bologna in London

The Fifth Ministerial Conference on the Bologna Process - a bi-annual event where the progress of the Bologna Process is monitored and new actions are decided upon - took place in London last week. This basically means a bombardment of papers, reports and speeches about what's been going on and what needs to be done, coming from everyone that is somehow related to higher education. All this has culminated in the London Communique (pdf).

I haven't had the time to go through all the documents yet, but the Communique does'nt seem to hold many surprises (which is not surprising of course for an inter-governmental document set up by over 40 countries). I did however read about an interesting option by Franck Vandenbroucke (in Dutch), Flemish minister of education and host for the Sixth Conference in 2009. He argues that the difference between the late and early adopters of the Bologna principles is too wide and that it is better for the early staters to explore the next frontiers for European cooperation, instead of waiting for the rest to catch up.

Euractiv has an article about the different perspectives on the outcome of the 5th Ministerial Conference. Here's my interpretation:

The European Union:

We want universities to be liberated from the shackles of state domination (you'll be better of with us)!

European Students:

It's all about us so you better take us seriously! Or else...

European Universities:

If you give us more freedom and more money we will give you whatever you want (and pay for)

European Business:

Actually, we have no clue what we want so we'll just repeat that we want your graduates to be interdisciplinary, process oriented and adaptable problem solvers that can work in teams. You figure it out...

The Brits:

We should all adopt similar standards... preferably the British ones

The HEEF: Economist's interpretation

The Economist has an article on the Australian budget which was presented a few days ago. In my previous post I highlighted one item in that budget: the Higher Education Endowment Fund. In this fund, the government will deposit 5 billion Australian dollars, securing future funding of around 300 million a year (and more if the fund will grow in the future). The board of the fund will select 'strategic investment proposals which provide quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy with respect to diversity, specialisation and responsiveness to labour market needs'.

I though it was quite an innovative approach to government funding of higher education but this is all what the Economist makes of it:

"the budget offered A$5 billion for new research centres in Australia's public universities"

Seems to me that there is quite a difference between the establishment of a fund (of which only the revenues can be spent) and 'offering 5 billion dollars' and a difference between research centres and investments which provide 'quality infrastructure and support Australian Government policy'.

The Higher Education Endowment Fund

Earlier this year, Kevin Rudd - leader of the Australian Labor Party - promised the country an education revolution if they would be voted into power (elections are later this year). Today, Peter Costello - treasurer of the current government - has tried to outdo Rudd in the new budget that was presented today. It's already been dubbed the education budget.

One of the most innovative items is the creation of a Higher Education Endowment Fund. The government shall set up the fund and put in an amount of 5 billion Australian dollars (4 billion US; 3 billion Euros (!)). The money is meant to build world class universities for Australia, according to Education Minister Julie Bishop:

"The fund is expected to provide a dividend of around $900 million over three years from 2008/09. The dividend will be distributed to universities by the Minister for Education, Science and Training taking into account the advice of an independent HEEF board. This investment will promote excellence, quality and specialisation in Australian universities for years to come, helping our institutions to become truly world class."

In addition to the HEEF, the Federal Government has also unveiled a $3.5 billion package to be spent over four years in higher education, vocational training and schools. The Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) by word of Professor Sutton - its president - has already welcomed the budget:

“The Australian Government through this Budget has shown its commitment to investing in Australia’s universities today, to ensure we continue to produce high quality, work ready graduates and researchers into the future. This Budget delivers on the key areas that the AVCC has been lobbying for."

Yes, I think it is good news for higher education in Australia. Maybe not so good for Labor. It will be interesting to follow this new instrument and see how it develops. Will the fund grow further by further donations from private parties and governments? After all, 5 billion for all of Australia's 41 universities becomes rather bleak when compared to US Universities. In the US, 12 endowment funds of individual (private) universities already exceed this amount, with Harvard topping the list with almost 29 billion. It will be especially interesting to see whether the availability of the fund will be an excuse for future budget cuts.

The treasurer has at least tried to assure the Australians that only the dividend will be used and that the fund itself will not be touched, not even by Labor. Mr Costello - referring to Labor's plan to use Australia's 'Future Fund' to fund a national high-speed broadband network - explained it like this:

"Let me make this clear - once the paw goes into the honey pot, it can pull all of the honey out. I put the honey in there - and I'm locking the honey against the paw."

Later this year, Australian voters will decide whether to leave Mr Costello with the key to the pot, or whether to let the bears in.

Thou Shalt Compete

The Economist gives a short review of the Bologna process and explains how it will inevitably increase competition in Europe. But for 'Old Europe' (as the Economist likes to call it) this requires more than just some structural changes:

"The more hidebound European universities must be wondering what on earth they have started. Self-interest has prodded them to think about students as customers: both wealthy foreign ones, and bright locals tempted to finish their studies overseas. Governments have realised they could save money if their universities made students study a bit more briskly, gaining degrees and entering the workforce earlier. Universities are beginning to compete for the brightest and best European exchange students too. But that's the problem with trying to become competitive. Before you know it, you may find yourself having to compete."

Read the full article here

EIT and Policy Research

A few weeks ago, I discussed a study of Luc Soete and Peter Tindemans on the feasibility of the European Institute of Technology. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis, they concluded that the decentralized EIT that has been proposed by the Commission was not feasible. It is too dispersed; it would not increase significantly the research output in a field; it cannot match a top tier university in providing an environment for training graduates; and a dispersed institute cannot adequately organize technology transfer. As an alternative, they suggested a clustered model for an EIT. Food for thought, you would think...

In the last weekend of April, EU competitiveness ministers backed a German EU presidency initiative on gradual progress towards a European Institute of Technology. In a public hearingCommissioner Figel said that it was time for the initial EIT plans to reach a conclusion. He claimed that there is a positive momentum now: "either we get it now or it's lost".

Obviously I was surprised to read nothing about the Soete/Tindemans study in the report of the hearing. As far as I could see, the design and organisation of the EIT presented in the hearing was exactly the same as the one suggested by the Commission before the study was published. This is all the more surprising considering that the research was conducted for a committee of the European Parliament. Of course government bodies are not obliged to follow the recommendations of reports that they have commissioned. But you would expect that it would at least be taken into consideration, especially since the authors are well known and respected researchers in this field.

This seems to be a typical example of the political (ab)use of policy research and policy analysis. If the results and recommendations are politically opportune and correspond with the politicians objectives they are praised and heralded as ground breaking landmark studies. If not, let's just neglect them and get on with what we planned.

You would at least hope that decision makers on research policies in Europe would take research seriously...

World Class Universities

Robert Birnbaum, professor of higher education at the University of Maryland and author of some very interesting books on higher education (How Colleges Work; Management Fads in Higher Education) has written an interesting (and amusing) article in International Higher Education (the Quarterly of the Center for International Higher Education (CIHE) in Boston College).

Birnbaum is worried about the World Class University ranking crisis. Universities around the world are either proclaiming that they have attained or try to achieve this mythical status. But actually, we have no clue what it means. Philip Altbach, leader of CIHE, has written before on the cost and benefits of the race towards world class:

Everyone wants a world-class university. No country feels it can do without one. The problem is that no one knows what a world-class university is, and no one has figured out how to get one. Everyone, however, refers to the concept. We are in an age of academic hype in which universities of different kinds in diverse countries claim this exalted status-often with little justification.

Birnbaum gives some suggestion on some alternative ways to identify world class universities:

1. The Bentham System - this scheme, based on the 19th century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham's principle of Utilitarianism, proposes that the best universities are those that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
2. Olympic System - In the Olympic System, teams of university faculty would compete every four years in head to head competitions combining athletic and intellectual prowess to determine their world rankings
3. Borges System - our scholarly task is merely to identify the book of true ratings from among the infinite number of books that contain very similar, but false, ratings which also exist
4. Sausage System - Throw U.S. News, the Gourman Report, the Times Hiigher Education Supplement, and other rankings created by systems of all kinds into the same bowl, add and average out the results and voila! Just as we do not know how a sausage is made (or, more to the point, we don't want to know) the Sausage System makes it difficult to understand just what has gone into any particular set of ratings.
5. Lake Wobegon System - in Lake Wobegon, you will remember, all the children are above average. This suggests the possibility of significantly expanding the number of institutions that can be ranked as world class merely by increasing the number of institutions in each category.

But he continues on a more serious note. Building on a metaphor by Daniel Dennett, he argues that such World Class Universities can only be built if they are firmly grounded in strong and indigenous educational and social foundations Trying to develop them by using imported rhetoric, imported models and large sums of money is destined to fail:

"Attempting to build World-Class Universities without attending first to the educational and social ground on which such institutions might stand is, as Ivan Illich once said, is "like trying to do urban renewal in New York City from the twelfth story up." Rather than more World Class Universities, what we really need in countries everywhere are more world-class technical institutes, world-class community colleges, world class colleges of agriculture, world class teachers colleges, and world class regional state universities."

A similar conclusion was drawn by Altbach. He concluded that as universities around the world seem to be orienting themselves to this single academic ideal, institutions and nations need to assess carefully their needs, resources, and long-term interests before launching into a campaign to build world-class institutions:

"Universities operate in both national and global contexts. The world-class idea falls into the global sphere. It assumes that the university is competing with the best academic institutions in the world and is aspiring to the pinnacle of excellence and recognition. National and even regional realities may differ. They relate to the need of the immediate society and economy and imply responsiveness to local communities. In these contexts, the nature of academic performance and roles may differ from what is expected at institutions competing in the global realm. To label one sphere world class while relegating the others to the nether regions of the academic hierarchy is perhaps inevitable, but nonetheless unfortunate."

I wholeheartedly agree with both conclusions. Universities are one of the oldest institutions and are clearly embedded in a nations' cultural, political and social context. This is not just the case for the Oxbridge-like universities, but also for the more recently established universities. However, this should not be a reason to avoid learning from each others experiences or models. Even copying models from other parts of the world does not necessarily lead to failure. It's just a matter of adaptation. And it is this process of local adaptation that is made difficult by the pressures on universities to adhere to so-called global world class standards.

Blame it on the rankings

Serious critique on rankings and league tables. This time not about the flawed methodologies and inaccuracies in the data collection, but on the detrimental effects of rankings. They 'erode academic vigour' and they 'threaten the country's prosperity'.

In the Guardian, Geoffrey Alderman argues that the league tables lead to grade inflation and a lowering of standards in order for universities to appear high in the rankings:

"How has British higher education got itself into this mess? Part of the answer lies in the league-table culture that now permeates the sector. The more firsts and upper seconds a university awards, the higher its ranking is likely to be. So each university looks closely at the grading criteria used by its league-table near rivals, and if they are found to be using more lenient grading schemes, the argument is put about that "peer" institutions must do the same. The upholding of academic standards is thus replaced by a grotesque "bidding" game, in which standards are inevitably sacrificed on the alter of public image - as reflected in newspaper rankings."

Alderman however, does not blame it all on rankings and league tables. It's also the changing student body that is to be blamed. Or more in particular, the funding system that has changed the student body:

"As UK students come to pay a greater proportion of the real cost of their tuition, they view themselves less as clients in the learning process and more as customers with needs to be satisfied. They are less interested in the acquisition of knowledge and of the critical skills needed to evaluate it, and more interested merely in acquiring and regurgitating those segments of knowledge necessary to obtain a degree."

I think Alderman is a bit too swift in his conclusions and his causal relations. Instead of the race-to-the-bottom thesis you could also argue that league tables lead to a race-to-the-top. That of course does require the rankings to use valid criteria and methods. His argument about the student body doesn't hold in my opinion. At least the relation isn't as straightforward as Alderman portrays. The 'students as customers' perspective can have a very positive effect on higher education. Since they payed, they want value for their money. They want scheduled classes to proceed, books to be available, lecturers to be prepared and to be involved, facilities to be up to date, etc. Alderman however doesn't seem to regard the student body very highly. They are reduced to degree seeking individuals.

The second critique comes from Richard Pike, Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He blames the lack of maths skills on the rankings and league tables:

"In the race to achieve higher rankings in the tables staff are discouraging pupils from taking mathematics after the age of 16 because the subject is viewed as difficult, and therefore a risk to league positions through examination failures."

To underline their argument they compared a (1st year students) maths test of "a respected English university" with a Chinese pre-entry test:

Ouch... I don't think you can blame this all on the rankings, but that hurts...

(thanks to ScienceGuide and Rangkingwatch for pointing me to the articles)

Higher Education and Statistics

The OECD has issued its latest Factbook. The OECD factbook 2007 contains a large amount of indicators on issues ranging from economics to the environment and from population to health. And of course on higher education. Some time ago I've been critical about the presentation of some of the OECD higher education statistics, but I must admit that they do a great job in collecting them. The OECD is without doubt the best source for cross-national statistics in the fields of higher education and science & innovation.

But of course you can do a lot with statistics and the media knows that. Just check out this article in the Higher Education section of the Australian:

"Australia's spending on tertiary education per student went backwards in the eight years after the Coalition came to power, leaving the nation ranked alongside Portugal, Poland and the Slovak Republic."

That sounds pretty bad... This definitely leaves the impression that funding per student levels in Australia are now behind Portugal, Poland and the Slovak Republic. I checked and... they are just behind the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, clearly above the OECD average and ranking 8th in the OECD member countries. And in the mean time, it has one of the highest attainment rates for young people in the OECD (see graph; click to enlarge). Obviously this journalist only looked at the graphs that were presented on the OECD website and didn't check any further.


But didn't it decline then? Yes it did, and yes the commonwealth government should channel more resources to universities if it expects them to be Backing Australia's Future. I've said before that I'm not exactly convinced that the current government is doing a good job in the field of higher education, but still I prefer to stay with the facts.

But what exactly the facts are is also not always clear. Some time ago, the news programme 'the 7.30 Report' featured a debate between Minister Julie Bishop and Labor education spokesman Stephen Smit. I think that they spend half the time talking about the OECD statistics and how bad Australia scores in them:

JULIE BISHOP: Between 1995 and 2007 Federal government funding for higher education has increased by 26%. Now, Stephen keeps trotting out an OECD figure that he knows is flawed, he knows is misrepresenting the situation. There has not been a decline, there's been an increase.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the OECD Education at a Glance Report 2006 said that Australia's investment in tertiary education publicly had gone backwards by 7% whereas OECD average was an increase of 48%. Comparison with OECD countries, our investment in tertiary education, we're 18th.

JULIE BISHOP: I must take issue with the suggestion that our funding has decreased. Stephen knows that figure is dodgy and he keeps trotting it out. Every time he says it doesn't make it true. We haven't decreased funding by 7%. The figure he refers to leaves out taxpayer subsidies for HECS, it leaves out the massive injection of funding from 2004 - because the figures back in 2003 he is using, 2004, we, through Backing Australia's Future, have ensured that universities are $11 billion better off over the next decade. This year they are receiving $8.2 billion from the Federal Government. Our universities are in better financial shape than they've ever been in...

Now... who's right and who's wrong?

Aussie news bites

Time for some higher education news from down under.

The biggest event the past week was definitely the launch of Melbourne University - New Style. The so-called Melbourne Model is based on six broad undergraduate programs followed by a professional graduate degree, research higher degree or entry directly into employment. In simple terms, what happened is that the old English model was exchanged for the American one. Of course this was accompanied by protests since according to some the university has decided on this move because of a lack of funding and others claim that this is just a measure that makes higher ed more elitist.

I think Glyn Davis, Melbourne's Vice-Chancellor, made an interesting move by adopting the new model. Considering Melbourne's good reputation, national and international, it's also a risky one. There's already quite some speculation on whether other universities will follow the Melbourne Model in the future. The future will tell, but at least Julie Bishop, the federal Minister for Education has seen her wish come true: finally there's some more diversity in the Australian higher education landscape.

Also this week, a study came out conducted by Gary Marks for the Australian Council for Educational Research. The study, released today, investigated attrition rates from university courses, background factors that may influence attrition and the labour market consequences of non-completion. Data were collected from a group of young Australians who commenced university study between 1998 and 2001. An analysis of the characteristics of students who fail to complete university courses has found that whether a student attended a government or independent school and their socioeconomic background made little difference to the odds of completing their course. The full report of the study can be downloaded here (pdf).

And then there was another study. Professor John Sweller of the University of New South Wales claims to have proved that powerpoint presentations have little power and even less point. According to his report, the brain cannot cope with having too much information thrown at it at once. Having someone speak and point to a screen full of facts and figures at the same time causes it to switch off. Sweller: "The use of the PowerPoint presentation has been a disaster. It should be ditched.

Clearly there's a difference between giving a ppt presentation and giving a good ppt presentation. I guess everyone by now knows that there should not be too much text on a slide and that you shouldn't read the slide during a presentation. I know not everyone obeys these rules, but ditching powerpoint seems to me a premature conclusion. I wonder whether the guys over in Redmond are getting nervous already...

Top 15 Controversial Honorary Doctorates

The tradition of awarding honorary degrees stems from Oxford University. These degrees were first awarded here in the 14th century and were given mostly to academic scholars. Nowadays the recipients range from academics to politicians to artists. Lately there has been quite some controversy about a few universities that had awarded Robert Mugabe an honorary degree. To my knowledge our most popular honorary degree recipients must be dr.dr.dr.dr. Václav Havel and dr.dr.dr. Nelson Mandela. Mandela has at least 30 honorary degrees - next to a long list of other awards. Václav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic, collected at least 46 honorary degrees. Every single one of them well deserved. In the following 15 cases that wasn't so sure...

15.

Let's start in Canada. On June 16, 2005 the University of Western Ontario conferred an honorary Doctor of Laws degree upon Morgentaler, a longtime abortion activist. This decision by UWO's senate honorary degrees committee generated opposition from Canadian pro-life organizations. Over 12,000 signatures were acquired asking the UWO to reverse its decision to honour Dr. Morgentaler.

14.

Yusuf Islam (formerly known as singer Cat Stevens) was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Gloucestershire. The year before that he was questioned about his alleged links with terrorists. He endorsed the fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie and refuses to shake the hand of a woman.

13.
My former employer, Twente University decided to award an honorary doctorate to Abdurrahman Wahid (better known as Gus Dur). This was just after he became the first (indirectly) democratically elected president of the Republic of Indonesia. If they had only known that a year later Gus Dur became involved in a corruption scandal (known as the Bulog-gate), a scandal in which Wahid's masseur and business partner allegedly stole $3.6 million from the state food agency, Bulog. Obviously questions arose within the university whether they should still award him the degree or not. I think they went on with it because Wahid would receive the doctorate for his lifetime work as leader of Indonesia's largest (moderate) Muslim group Nahdlatul Ulama and also because he was not personally involved in the scandal. Whether he ever received the doctorate, I don't know. I hope he did!! Things became rather quiet after a while....

12.

Another one from Canada. Controversy erupted when Ryerson University conferred an honorary degree on medical ethicist Margaret Somerville. A number of faculty from Ryerson and other universities and students vocally protested Somerville views that children’s rights are violated when they are adopted by same-sex couples.

11.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from his alma mater, the University of Wisconsin Superior. The award recognized Schwarzenegger's contributions to health and fitness, speaking out against prejudice, and creating positive opportunities for inner-city children.

10.

Mike Tyson- Boxer and High School dropout received a Doctorate in Humane Letters in 1989 from Central Ohio State University. Another boxer, George Foreman received an honorary doctorate from the Houston Graduate School of Theology on Saturday for his charity work with children.

9.

Bill Gates - the chairman of Microsoft will get an honorary degree from Harvard on June 7 this year. Maybe not really controversial, but funny considering that Gates once studied mathematics at Harvard but then dropped out after 2 years. But he did fine without the degree...

8.

The University of Queensland in Australia awarded a doctorate to its longest serving State Prime Minister. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen however was not exactly impeccable ...he turned out to be a corrupt populist.

7.

Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori's honorary doctorate was received in 1992 and revoked in 2001! He received it from his Alma Mater "National Agrarian University" in Peru, where he studied, taught and served as rector. They stripped him of an honorary doctorate for 'ethical reasons'.

6.

Recent controversy in the Australian National University. They awarded Lee Kuan Yew an honorary doctorate, and - to say it mildly - the faculty weren't all too happy about that. He is Singapore's founding father, Prime Minister from 1959-1990 and current 'Minister Mentor' under his son Lee Hsien Loong. Well....basically he is Singapore. He brought Singapore a lot of economic prosperity and was a little less concerned with individual liberties, press freedom and academic freedom. On top of all that he stated in the 1980s that Australians were destined to become the "poor white trash of Asia". The Australians didn't really appreciate that.

5.

Number 6 is for my own Alma Mater, the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. As a University close to the German border they decided to award an honorary doctorate to Helmut Kohl, the former Chancellor of Germany. But - just as the other Dutch case at nr.13 - their Doctor too be became involved in a corruption scandal (Das System Kohl)in the Christian Democratic Party CDU. In the end he did receive his honorary doctorate in October 2000.

4.

In 2002, the University of Wolverhampton awarded honorary degrees to glam rockers Slade, whose creative approach to spelling was displayed on 1970s hits such as Mama Weer All Crazee Now and Gudbuy t’Jane.

3.

This one actually shouldn't be here, since they never got to awarding the honorary degree. The most famous rejection was of Margaret Thatcher, who was snubbed by Oxford academics while she was prime minister. She was the first Oxford graduate turned PM that did not receive the honorary degree...

2.

Then there is of course Robert Mugabe or Dr Dictator. He was awarded honorary degrees by Edinburgh University (1984), the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (1986) and Michigan State University (1990). The President of Zimbabwe, was showered with praise when he helped establish the independence of his country, formerly Rhodesia, in 1979 and end white rule when he won the first open elections as prime minister. But a lot can change in 30 years...

1.

An the indisputable number 1. In 1996 Southampton College at Long Island University awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Amphibious Letters to Muppet Kermit the Frog. Although some students objected to awarding a degree to a puppet, Kermit delivered an enjoyable commencement address and the small college received considerable press coverage.

Reality TV enters Academia

A cross between 'University Challenge' and 'The Apprentice'. That's how The Times describes a new TV show in India: Scholar Hunt - Destination UK. In the show, students will compete for full scholarhips to the universities of Leeds, Warwick, Cardiff, Sheffield and Middlesex. They will follow the students going through the exams, interviews and other tests for the scholarships. Each of the British universities will award one scholarship for a 3 year degree worth 45000 Pounds.

Arun Thapar, the show’s producer and presenter:

“It’s survival of the fittest, but hopefully this will provide someone with a life-changing opportunity. “We’ll be doing things that will be very engaging. The drama — the laughter and the tears — will be a key part of it.”

Mr Thapar also added that the universities would choose the questions and would not compromise their usual admission standards. The show, which will begin transmitting in India in July, combines the Indian craze for studying overseas with the growing popularity of reality TV. It also reflects the ambitions of British universities to recruit more Indian students in the face of cheaper competition from other Western countries.

According to The Times, NDTV is expecting tens of thousands of students to apply when registration starts via an online test on their website later this month. The top 2,000 applicants will then be filmed sitting exams and the top 200 will be interviewed on camera by a panel including university representatives. The top 100 will enter a studio quiz to select the 20 finalists. Finally, a second studio quiz will choose the five winners.

I tried to have a look at their website. But...it didn't work. Too popular perhaps?

Brussels vs. Brussels

In a letter of formal notice, the Commission has recently 'ordered' the Austrian and Belgian governments to change their entry requirements for other EU students(*). The Commission argued that the caps and quotas that have been put in place by these governments are in breach of Article 12 of the EU Treaty ("Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited").

A law introduced last year was intended to cut the number of non-Belgians accepted on certain courses like physiotherapy and verterinary medicine by implementing a cap of 30%. Before this law, as many as 80% of the places on these and other courses linked to medicine were filled by French students who did not meet the access requirements in their own country. The Belgian Government argues that this puts undue strain on universities and colleges and undermines its domestic goals in educating medical professionals. This very much resembles the fierce reaction of Austrian chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer.

According to the Times HE Supplement, the Belgian Minister for Higher Education, Marie-Dominique Simonet, is ready to take up the battle with the Commission:

Simonet argues that this is simply the beginning of a process that will allow the Government to show that its system is not discriminatory. She is ready to resort to legal avenues. "It is not for the Commission but for the European Court of Justice to say if the 30 per cent limit is against European law," she said. In 2005, the court found that a broader limit in Austria was disproportionate rather than unjustified.

Instead of abolishing the quota, Simonet even intends to tighten the regulations for future foreign EU students. She has proposed measures to close a loophole whereby residency can be earned by working for six months in Belgium. She plans to extend the requirement to 15 months, making it even harder for foreign EU students to gain access to these programmes.

The Austrian and Belgian governments had until 24 March to respond to the letter of formal notice. I haven't seen any of the reactions yet. I'll keep you posted on this issue.

(*) See the posts on Europeanisation by stealth, Higher education and Europe, More Europeanisation and Austria versus Brussels for past developments in these cases. See also this post on European integration in higher education.

Economic Benefits of Higher Education

Universities UK - the umbrella organisation of the Vice-Chancellors in the UK - issued a report (by Pricewaterhouse Coopers) last week on the private economic benefits of getting a degree. The report shows that higher education is still a very good investment: university graduates earn on average about a quarter more than young people who leave school after their A-levels. In total, a degree will bring average additional earnings of £160,000 over a working life. Some more findings:

• Financial benefit is greatest for men from lower socio-economic groups or from families from lower levels of income

  The rate of return to the individual would be expected to rise from 12.1% to 13.2% following changes to the student finance package arising from the introduction of variable tuition fees

  The benefits associated with HE qualifications increase as graduates get older

  Graduates are more likely to be employed compared to those with the next highest qualification and are more likely to return to employment following periods in unemployment or economic inactivity

  Significant costs associated with higher education are borne by the state

Diana Warwick, Chief Executive, Universities UK:

“We already know that graduates in the UK enjoy one of the highest financial returns of any OECD country. This report provides evidence that despite the expansion of higher education, the graduate premium has been maintained. Higher education is still clearly a worthwhile investment for the individual.

Also last week, they issued their third report on the impact of the higher education sector on the national economy (previous version were from 1997 and 2002). The report confirms the growing economic importance of the sector which had an income of almost 17 billion pounds a year in 2003/04 (compared with almost 12.8 billion in 1999/2000) and showed gross export earnings of 3.6 billion pounds. In the words of Drummond Bone, President of Universities UK:

All the evidence suggests that the direct economic importance of higher education will continue to grow in the future. The future expansion of student numbers, domestic and international, the development of knowledge transfer activities as well as a substantial volume of research all point in the same direction. Such activity depends on a continuing mix of public and private investment in the sector.

Income from private sources now amounts to 27% of all higher education income and this figure will increase significantly with the introduction of variable tuition fees. It is equally clear that public investment will continue to play a vital role in the development of the sector. It is evident from the findings of this report that such investment has a direct economic impact on the UK economy as well as maintaining the health of the sector.

I'm sure that these two reports - making a case for both more private as well as public investment in higher education - have been welcomed by the members of Universities UK...

Female University Presidents

Harvard has named Drew Gilpin Faust as its 28th president. Faust has since 2001 been the Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Last year, Larry Summers had a turbulent exit as Harvard president. This was caused mainly by a speech he held at NBER, early 2005. In trying to explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions, he suggested that it might be related to ability and/or preference.

The new Harvard president seems to be the opposite of her predecessor. Richard Bradley, author of "Harvard Rules: Lawrence Summers and the Battle for the World's Most Powerful University" illustrates this in Newsweek:

It’s hard not to look at Faust in the context of the Summers presidency. Summers got in trouble for his remarks about women in science and mathematics; Faust is, of course, a woman. Summers was never considered a great booster of the humanities; Faust is a historian. Summer’s governing style was-how can I put it nicely?—aggressive; Faust is said to be much more of a consensus builder. Even though Summers had taught at Harvard, he’d been gone for about a decade and was effectively a Harvard outsider; Faust was an internal candidate. So in almost every instance, if Summers was X, Faust is Y.

Faust is the first female president of Harvard and she is the fourth female president of an Ivy League University (Judith Roddin was the first in 1994). If we look at the top 10 universities in the world (according to THES), we can see that after the appointment of Faust, the top of the academic world is now led by women, with Drew Gilpin Faust and Alison Richard of Cambridge occupying poisitions one and two. MIT and Princeton (4 and 10) are led by Susan Hockfield and Shirley Tilghman. The rest is still led by male presidents, and so are the universities ranked 11-20.

1 Harvard University - Derek Bok / Drew Gilpin Faust
2 University of Cambridge - Alison Richard
3 University of Oxford - John Hood
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Susan Hockfield
4 Yale University - Richard C. Levin
6 Stanford University - John Hennessy
7 California Institute of Technology - Jean-Lou Chameau
8 University of California, Berkeley - Robert J. Birgeneau
9 Imperial College London - Sir Richard Sykes
10 Princeton University - Shirley M. Tilghman

In Australia 9 out of the 38 Vice-Chancellors are now women (in 2003 there were 11), which is almost a quarter. In the UK, I think it's only around 10%, while in the Netherlands the situation is outright embarrassing. None of the Rectors - the academic leaders - of the universities are women and as far as I know only 1 out of the 13 chairmen of the Universities' executive boards (the executive leaders), is actually a chairwoman...

Austria vs. Brussels

The case of the Austrian Europeanisation by stealth and the European Commissions' (EC) recent letter of formal notice continues... The Austrian chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer thinks that the EC not only affects the Austrian higher education policies but also jeopardizes the Austrian health system. He has said he will resist Brussels' push for equal access of all EU students to Austria's medical faculties.

"Vienna and Berlin have been and are still in agreement on the quotas scheme, and it is preposturous that some doctrinaires describe something as discriminatory which is not being perceived as discriminatory at all by the governments concerned," he added.

"It is a fact that more than 90 percent of German medical students at our universities return to Germany. It can't be the task of the EU to jeopardize our health care. Those doctrinaires who are pushing for free educational access should broaden their perspective and take into account the effects on health care."

"This is none of the commission's business," Mr Gusenbauer indicated, according to Germany's Die Welt. "It should meanwhile ask itself whether it is not itself contributing to European citizens increasingly turning away from the institutions. Boundaries are being crossed here which should not be crossed."

Germany and Austria agree with each other. However, the European Commission seems to think just a bit more 'European' than the Germans and the Austrians. It might be 'none of the commissions business' as Gusenbauer says, but let's wait and see how the Commission and the European Court of Justice will respond.

Greek resistance

More than six thousand students and academics marched through the centre of Athens last night to oppose government plans to reform the country's higher education system and allow private universities to operate in Greece.

The protests reflect the rising tension over the reforms proposed by government, which would break a major taboo in Greece by allowing private universities to operate under state supervision and to issue state-recognized degrees. Academic staff began a three-day strike Wednesday, and have threatened open-ended strikes from next week. State primary and secondary school teachers held a sympathy work stoppage. The protest has become a weekly march to the Greek parliament against the planned reform. The protesters vowed to keep coming back until the bill was scrapped.

The Australian reports:

The protests have crippled the country's tertiary education system, with more than 300 university departments closed due to student sit-in protests against the bill before the busy February exam period. "I do not care if I miss my exams because of these protests," student Marina Iosifidou said. "There is a higher goal here and that is to keep state education in public hands and cost free."

Maybe this student and her fellow protestors should think twice before rejecting the option of allowing private universities to operate in Greece. After all...they need them!

(click here to enlarge)

Greek higher education is very dependent on the UK higher education system, having over 20,000 students in the UK (see table above). Here, students pay (high) tuition fees to be able to attend higher education, which they cannot get in their own country. In addition, Greece sends about 20,000 students to other countries in the EU, making it the largest importer of higher education in Europe. Maybe allowing other (private) universities in the country isn't such a bad idea after all...

More Europeanisation

On the 24th of January, a so-called 'letter of formal notice' has been sent by the European Commission to the governments of Austria and Belgium. The letter concerns the 'Europeanisation by stealth' that I have addressed before here for the case of Austria and here for the case of Belgium. These governments thought they found a solution for the high influx of foreign students (respectively German and French) in some of their universities.

European law - Article 12 of the EC Treaty - prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. In Austria, they thought they found a way to circumvent European law by discriminating not on the basis of nationality (which was addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in July 2005) but on the basis of the location where students obtained their secondary education. Now it seems that the Commission considers that Austria has still not complied with the ECJ's ruling:

"In the case of Austria, this is a follow-up to the judgement of the European Court of Justice in July 2005. The Austrian legislation had required that the holders of secondary education diplomas from other Member States had to prove that they have met conditions governing access to the higher education in their home country (e.g. passing the entrance exams). The Court held that Austria's legislation discriminated against holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in another Member State, since they could not gain access to Austrian higher education under the same conditions as holders of the equivalent Austrian diploma (Article 12, 149, 150 of the EC Treaty). As regards a possible justification of such discrimination, the ECJ stated in particular that Austria "failed to demonstrate that ... the existence of the Austrian education system in general and the safeguarding of the homogeneity of higher education in particular would be jeopardized”, in the absence of restrictive measures, by the number of students coming from other countries, mainly Germany.

Following the Court's decision, Austria provisionally amended the relevant Universities Act twice, firstly in July 2005 to abide the Court's decision then, in June 2006, to re-establish restrictions to the access. The latter amendment specified that, for some studies, 75 % of the study places could be reserved to applicants with a secondary education diploma acquired in Austria (and 20 % to other EU students, the remaining 5% to third-countries students). A subsequent decree stipulated that these quotas were to be introduced for medicine and dental studies till the end of 2007.

Today's letter of formal notice – based on Article 228 of the Treaties (i.e. non-application of an ECJ ruling)- indicates that the Commission, having analysed the justifications put forward so far by the Austrian authorities, considers at this stage that Austria has still not complied with the ECJ's ruling and invites accordingly Austria to submit its observations."

Reforms in Belgium (the Wallonian part) last year restricted the number of foreign students in particular degrees like veterinary science and physiotherapy. Many French students studied in Belgium because they are required to go through entrance exams in France. While writing about that case in March last year, I already predicted that this might constitute a breach of Article 12. In their letter, the Commission seems to agree:

"With today's letter of formal notice, the European Commission indicates – for similar reasons as in the Austrian case – that this system has discriminatory effect on the EU nationals not residing in Belgium and that Belgium failed to justify the introduction of this system."

Both Member States have now 2 months to respond to the letter of formal notice of the Commission. A letter of formal notice has no direct legal consequences but it is considered the first step of infringement proceedings which could lead to cases before the ECJ.

Most likely there will be more similar cases like this in the near future. The EU Observer for instance addresses the Denmark case:

"Meanwhile Denmark - which has many Swedish students in its universities - is looking at what Copenhagen may do to stop the influx from across the Oresund strait."We have to find a solution at the EU [level]," Danish science minister Helge Sander said in July 2006, after it emerged that one third of students accepted in Danish medical faculties that year were Swedish."

So why do I keep coming back to this issue? The cases in themselves of course do have a significant local impact. But it is more about the bigger picture: the loss of national sovereignty over an issue that has always been firmly within the authority of national governments. To what extent can a 'non discrimination' principle function in a service that is still seen as very important for the advancement of national society, national culture and the national economy.

Here, it could be interesting to make a comparison with the United States. In the US, discrimination on the basis of the 'state of origin' is a normal practice. Some public universities (the State Universities) have a clear mandate to recruit a certain part of their student population from their own region (some states or university systems set caps on the proportion of students that can be enrolled from other states) and are allowed to charge higher tuition to out-of-state students. One could conclude that higher education in the United states of Europe is more integrated than in the United States of America...

The pressure from the Commission and the rulings of the ECJ can especially have an important impact upon policies regulating student fees. If selection on the basis of nationality is no longer possible, it will become unsustainable to provide free education in some countries. After all, this is likely to create an influx of foreign students from other EU member countries (for which the tax payers in the host country are probably unwilling to pay). As we have seen in the cases above, not only tuition fees, but also other barriers to access might cause such an outflux.

In the ScienceGuide I read the reaction of the chairman of the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), Koen Geven. He says that the letter of the Commission came too late and is too soft. Nevertheless, they are happy the Commission is finally taking action, because these two countries (Belgium and Austria) have been neglecting one of the most fundamental principles in the European Union - non discrimination - for too long.

I would think that the ultimate consequences of this increased Europeanisation of higher education might turn out to be very much contradictory to the guiding principles of some national student unions (for instance with regards to tuition fees and other financial issues, like providing financial student support to - national - students). I wonder what the Austrian and Belgium members of the ESIB think of the Commissions letter! Geven also says that the countries where the students come from should reconsider their regulations with respect to access to higher education. Indirectly that would mean - in this case - that Germany and France should harmonise their policies towards 'a European standard', leading to further convergence in the field and threatening the - so much treasured - diversity in European higher education.

I think the Commission is well aware of the senstivity of the issue on the longer term. It clearly shows that in the press release:

"The Commission recognises the sensitivity of the issue of access to universities in various Member States. While pursuing its role as guardian of the Treaties, it remains open to continue the dialogue with both the Austrian and Belgian authorities."

I'll keep a close eye on further developments in this case.

Ivy League CEOs

The blog of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) has a post that plugs into an earlier article from Time: "Where the Fortune 50 CEOs Went to College". Here it was concluded that an elite career doesn’t always stem from an elite education.

CCAP conducted a deeper study of this topic. They tracked down the CEOs for the top 100 Fortune companies for the years 2006, 1980 and 1955. Together, this represents roughly three different generations of business leaders. From there, they researched where these CEOs completed their undergraduate and graduate work, in addition to levels and types of degrees obtained. They arrive at a similar conclusion:

"Over time, the Ivy League has experienced a decline. By 1980, the number of CEOs attending undergraduate school at Ivy League institutions had fallen to 19, a 50 percent drop from the previous generation. Fewer CEOs attended the prestigious schools as well, with only 32 in 1980. This trend away from the Ivy League as well as America’s “prestigious” universities continued into 2006. Of the top 100 Fortune CEOs of companies last year, only 12 did their undergraduate work at an Ivy institution and 20 at a prestigious school.

However, they also looked at the increasing number of CEOs that attended graduate schools after their undergraduate education. But even in graduate education, the Ivy League's dominance seems to be in decline:

"Graduate school attendance among the Fortune 100 CEOs has greatly increased over the past half century. For example, in 1955, only 17 CEOs attended graduate school. This number increased to 46 in 1980 and 61 in 2006. The number that attended Ivy graduate schools grew from 4 in 1955 to 16 in 1980 where it remained in 2006. This statistic remaining the same in the period from 1980 to 2006, despite increasing graduate school attendance, seems to further suggest the declining influence of the Ivy League—even among graduate schools."

Have a look at the complete post here.

The End of the University

On 8 January, at the 375th birthday (Dies Natalis) of the University of Amsterdam, University Professor Louise Fresco gave the annual anniversary speech (Dies rede) to the university community. Unfortunately, the address is only available in Dutch. With the risk of totally mutilating and distorting Fresco's brilliant style of writing, I want to share a few (translated) passages of her magnificent speech.

In her address, Louise Fresco reported about research that was done by Dr. Hakim Sarastro of the University of Oeloemia. Part of Dr. Sarastro's research on European higher education was conducted in Amsterdam(*). Fresco cites frequently from the letters that Sarastro sent to his colleagues in Oeloemia.

In his first letter(**), Sarastro starts on a positive and hopeful note:

"Dear Friends, finally I am in Europe, birthplace of western science! I feel like a traveler whose thirst will finally be quenched. Where better than in this continent, where the university was invented, can we test whether we are heading in the right direction at home in Oeloemia."

After doing field work at the University of Amsterdam, Sarastro continues in a more disillusioned tone in his second letter:

"In Oeloemia we know that the young student is like a new flower that needs to be treated carefully and has to be given the utmost care and attention. Only the freshest water and the purest nutrients will lead to knowledge and understanding. (...) But here, education takes place in grubbily underground rooms with bright fluorescent tubes, heaps of crushed plastic cups and scratched tables, by overworked teachers that do not have the time for the massive number of students that they are supposed to take care of. Under the guise of self-directed learning, many classes have been abolished; ...and that while the art of listening is the first step in the maturation of the young soul."

Dr. Sarastro was also astonished about the incestuous nature of academia in this small country, as he wrote in his fourth letter:

"... And then I noticed something that is utterly perplexing. In this affluent country there are no distant, isolated areas without books, where to one could be expelled. From east to west, from north to south, everywhere people live in equal comfort, but still no one seems to be willing to move. What in other places would be called intellectual incest - please forgive me the use of such a shocking term - has here become normal practice: one becomes professor at the university where one obtained the PhD, or where one graduated. Maybe that is why they are so found of the miniscule differences between the universities and research groups. Here, they are worse than the strictest religious scholars in Oeloemia: the ones that come from a particular school will be rejected in other schools, as a renegade. Even though they call themselves international, here in this country they see themselves and their models as unique, and that's why they prefer to avoid speaking amongst each other."

Accountability and performance have led to a system of peer review in the evaluation of research and the assessment of universities. This system is discussed in his fifth letter.

"This beautiful system however, is far less objective than its supporters think. The editors of the top journals are not afraid to use political resources to preserve their power. The editorial boards are inclined to create barriers and only accept papers that come from likeminded schools, so that rival groups can publish less of their work. Researchers themselves will slice their studies into more and more separate pieces, lest they can publish more. It is as if they try to squeeze as many drops out of an orange as possible instead of trying to squeeze one drop of valuable perfume out of the orange blossom."

And about university evaluations:

"Believe me, I sincerely made an attempt to read the assessment reports, but I don't have the faintest idea about which conclusions can be drawn on the basis of these reports, except that everything is going well and that they are very satisfied about themselves. Of course they will include foreign peers in the assessment teams. But here it is the case that they invite friends from likeminded schools, and that they return the favor at their schools. So, almost without exception, they get a grade of the highest level, and only rarely will a program be abolished. Considering all this, one would conclude that all inhabitants of this university were prophets."

"And I'll tell you something else I didn't expect, my friends. Their work is now so tightly coordinated and arranged, that there is no time left anymore for unanticipated ideas. But if we aim for the development of knowledge, don't we then need the freedom to go where our research leads us? The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain."

In his sixth letter he writes about his experiences within the faculties.

"It is truly a relief to see that the long European tradition is kept alive: here at the University of Amsterdam there are still the identifiable, classical faculties like the medical sciences, the physical sciences and the humanities. But I discovered that within these faculties programs are established of which I can not understand the content. These programs are about issues like doing business and communication. (...) Friends, it cannot be the case that a scientific, academic education has no higher objective then helping young people to understand the news on TV and to write their CVs!"

(...)

"They stand with their backs against each other, looking over the river, full of distrust and only longing for participation in the 'League of Top Universities and Top Faculties' on the other side of the seas. Politicians here claim that knowledge is the cornerstone of progress, but they distrust every call for more university resources. Can this small country, that in many respects is already 'big' relative to its population and its area, excel in all areas? Like the wise men say: the mountain that wants to reach to the skies, needs to spread its slopes widely over the plains, and the elite is positioned on the shoulders of large families."

Dr. Sarastro also expresses his concern about the financial situation and the bureaucracy in the universities:

"Every time, more and more pages need to be written to obtain the same amount of money. Most peculiar of this university is that so few hours are spent on thinking. Instead of thinking they write reports, instead of waiting patiently for that creative spark, they are in meetings."

Why not compare the Sciences with the Arts, proposes Dr. Sarastro:

"The development, protection and transfer of knowledge don't differ fundamentally from the promotion of the Arts, which flourishes so well over here. Does it? Sponsoring is what this peculiar transaction is called, not only free of interest, but also free of influence: one buys or hires ten dancers, fifty violinists or three paintings, without being able to determine what is played or displayed. It might be amazing that the rich are involved in such activities, but over here it is regarded as very respectable for the rich to support museums and concerts.

Doesn't our knowledge - that helps us to understand how the world works, what our position is and who we are - deserve to be nourished just like the Arts? Nevertheless, the rich and the companies remain absent, unless they can determine what the research will be about? "

Dr. Sarastro also finds that there is a feeling of distance and indifference between city and university, except where it concerns making money through spin-off companies. He thinks that that should be different:

"I haven't spoken to anyone in the city that was truly proud of the University of Amsterdam. A city without university is like a human without thoughts, like a plain without a horizon! They cannot exist without each other. The city needs free thinkers because creativity and authenticity represent a city. The application of knowledge in new companies occurs spontaneously in an environment that attracts creative people. There is no need for official committees to stimulate this."

By the time Hakim Sarastro gets to his eighth letter, there seem to appear more and more signs of desperation:

"Friends! In Oeloemia, the university is a place where students in small groups and together with their teachers, learn what science is, where research demands the highest personal dedication and where only the best professors - by rotation - as deans take comprehensible decisions about the academic directions."

(...)

"The confusion and dissatisfaction here, prove that systems of equity representation and participation do not lead to courageous decisions. National politicians refuse to put the money where their mouth is, the management of universities is paralyzed by internal struggles and lack of resources, and the professors... ah, they'll go their own way. There is no Universitas here, no desire to jointly shape a university."

(...)

"This is, my friends, the sad ending of a grand tradition that, from Bologna, via Coimbra, Paris, Heidelberg and Cambridge led to the nice European promises of Lisbon. Does this mean the end of the university? Will she implode because of the increasing bureaucratic pressures from within and from outside, and the centrifugal forces of market oriented research that is destroying the classical faculties? Will the university go to pieces because of a lack in leadership or because of the increasing student numbers? However things may be in Amsterdam, my dearest friends, we in Oeloemia need to go forward! Because he who saves one university, saves them all!"

Dr. Sarastro ends his last letter with the following passage:

"Oh friends, how my heart longs for the gardens of Oeloemia, for the jasmine shrubs that are touched by the quiet drops of the fountain - like by the finger tips of a lover - , for the honorable calmness of our inner courts where one only reads and whispers. There should be as many universities as there are plants flourishing in our gardens. Too long have I found myself in this grey mist, between empty trees and the smell of fried potatoes, in this country where the moon appears to be slower and paler than elsewhere. I have told you in detail about my visit, since I could only survive by telling you my story"

_________
(*) Sarastro, H. Letters from My Travels Searching for Universal Serendipity, the case of the University of Amsterdam (English summary). University of Oeloemia, Sunpower Press, Oeloemia, 2006. Circulation restricted.

(**) In an end note to the speech, Louise Fresco reveals her real source of inspiration: Lettres persanes by Montesquieu (Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu), anonymously published in Amsterdam in 1721. Montesquieu is such an inspiring character because he was interested in - and experienced in - all sciences, from philosophy to physics. The name Sarastro does not come from the Lettres persanes, but of course refers to the keeper of the Temple of Wisdom in Mozart's Zauberflote. Fresco has named him Hakim ('the wise man'). Oeloemia is a name made up by Fresco, coming from 'Uluum', the Arabic word for Sciences.

Some of Sarastro's words come directly from Montesquieu. In other instances, Fresco has added some words from Persian poetry (from Thackston, W.M.: A Millennium of Classical Persian Poetry: A Guide to the Reading & Understanding of Persian Poetry from the Tenth to the Twentieth Century, 1994 Ibex Publishers, Bethesda (MD)). The comparison with the barking dog (Letter V) comes from a speech by Adlai Stevenson from the University of Wisconsin (in 1952: 'If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain').
_________

[With thanks to ScienceGuide for pointing me to the speech. The full speech, in Dutch, can be found here]

The Ivy League Liga: Round 2

2006 has been somewhat of a revolutionary year for German higher education. The system where all universities were considered of equal quality and therefore were subjected to equal treatment by the government, experienced quite a stir.

German Minister of Research and Education Annette Schavan announced in October last year that the Ludwig-Maximilian University (Munchen) and the Technical University of Munchen and the University of Karlsruhe became Germany's first 'elite universities'. The three institutions are the biggest winners in Germany's 'excellence initiative'. This was established to improve the country's chronically under-funded universities (and its decreasing reputation abroad), by encouraging high level research and competition. The three universities will receive around 120 million euros each in federal and state funds over the next five years.

This week, the finalists for the second round were announced. Being one of the winners is crucial considering that getting designated 'elite' will mean enjoying a piece of the 1.9 billion euros pie, made available from 2007 to 2011. This time the result seems less skewed towards technology, and less towards the southern part of Germany than the first round. The finalists include two institutes of higher education in Berlin, the Free University and the Humboldt University. The others are the RWTH Aachen and the universities of Bochum, Freiburg, Gottingen, Heidelberg and Constance.

The final decision on which of these eight will be designated 'elite' will be made in October.

Some interesting views from the German academic community on the excellence initiative can be heard in this radio interview (from NPR; 4:26 in english):

Listen to the interview in Realplayer

Listen to the interview in Windows Media Player

.

Retention of Foreign Graduates

Some months ago, the Vienna based International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) published a study on admission and retention policies towards foreign students.

Much has been written about the way in which states and universities have promoted international mobility of students and international recruiting. This study looks at what happens with these foreign students after they graduate. This is particularly interesting considering that more and more industrialised countries are looking for ways to promote immigration of highly skilled professionals to help boost their economy.

The study covers the following countries in detail: Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the USA, and the United Kingdom. Additionally, developments regarding student migration are outlined in the Czech Republic, Italy, New Zealand, Norway and Spain. The report (96 pages) shows some interesting statistics and comparisons. Here are some passages from the executive summary.

On the growth of international students:

The dynamic growth of the international student population over the last five years was also, compared to the US, more pronounced in many European and overseas countries. While the stock of international students increased by only 10% in the US between 2000 and 2005, France and Germany saw their international student population increase by more than 60%, Australia by over 120% and Sweden by 146%.

On retention rates:

On average, between 15 and 20% of foreign students can be expected to eventually settle and work in Canada. In New Zealand, of all first-time students between 1998 and 2005, 13% had already received a permanent residence permit by 2006. In Norway, of all non-EEA students studying there between 1991 and 2005, 18% stayed in the country after graduation (but only 9% of all EEA students). In the UK, a recent survey sent to EU domiciled students six months after graduation in 2005 indicates that around 27% of respondents were employed in the UK (up from 19% in 2000). On the other hand, survey data for the USA indicate that retention rates for foreign nationals who received a doctorate in science and engineering are well over 50% (there are no comparable data on non-doctorate degrees available).

Download the full report here

The world according to maps

The Spatial and Social Inequalities Research Group of the Geography Department at the University of Sheffield have created an interesting website. Worldmapper: the world as you've never seen it before. It is a collection of world maps, where territories are re-sized on each map according to the subject of interest.

I played around a bit, creating maps reflecting the participation in higher education, the amount higher education spending and the scientific research in terms of the number of scientific articles. Unsurprisingly, this creates maps where the US, Europe and East Asia is dominating. However, if you compare it with a population map, it's clear that the dominance is especially in North America, Europe and Japan.

However, if we look at the maps (click for enlargements) that show the growth in higher education spending...

...and the growth in scientific research over the period 1990-2001, we see some interesting things.

• Australia has basically vanished from the face of the earth, in terms of the growth in spending on higher ed. It looks like it has to illustrate a negative value. Some other countries where growth is not keeping up are the Netherlands and the UK.
• The map on higher education spending already shows that Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore already spent relatively much on higher education. The map on the growth of spending shows that these countries' increasingly see higher education as a priority.
• Singapore's fixation with the emerging knowledge economy seems to bear fruit. Singapore had the greatest per person increase in scientific publications.
• In terms of scientific growth, nearly the whole continent of Africa seems to be swept of the map. But also a populous country like Indonesia has turned from a string of islands into a nearly invisible line.

Travel report

Here, somewhere between Los Angeles and Sydney, I decided it's time to resume posting again. I'm returning from a very long and interesting trip through Indonesia, Malaysia, India, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada and the US. In three of the countries I have conducted interviews for my research: Indonesia (at Institut Teknologi Bandung and Universitas Gadjah Mada), Malaysia (Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Malaya) and the Netherlands (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and Technische Universiteit Delft).

My research analyses the way in which nation states and universities respond to the increasing importance of knowledge for economic development and global competitiveness. One thing I'm particularly interested in is the extent to which a process of global policy convergence can be detected in these responses.

In later posts I will try to refer to some of the experiences I've had in these countries. For now, just a few short observations

Indonesia has come a long way, but is struggling. Indonesia's elite universities are more and more relying on student fees and entrepreneurial ventures to sustain their operations. Just over 5 years ago, these universities were almost solely dependent on government funding and strictly directed by national regulations. It of course has also given them much more autonomy. I remember I had some interviews in Indonesia in 2001, just after some of its public elite institutions received the autonomy status. At that time they were clearly struggling with their newly gained autonomy. Compared with 2001, one now seems to be much more decisive on what directions to go.

I couldn't have chosen a more interesting time to visit Malaysia. During my visits in Penang and Kuala Lumpur, the Times Higher Education Supplement issued its annual top 100 ranking of universities. One conclusion must be that the THES ranking is nowhere taken more seriously than in Malaysia. This however can be said for higher education as a whole. In politics as well as the mainstream media, higher education gets more attention in Malaysia than in any other country I know. But at the same time this has led to a remarkable progress in higher education and science. I've seen very interesting examples of cutting edge research, supported by impressive facilities. Also politically, Malaysia has proven to be fascinating. I won't go into details here, but it has become clear to me that - due to its impressive economic and scientific progress - Malaysia's tight political control seems to become less and less sustainable. If some of the governmental regulations won't loosen up, Malaysia might become a typical example of the incompatibility between paternalistic politics and a creative knowledge society. Future will tell..

And than there's the Netherlands. My visit coincided with the national elections, and if there is one word that best illustrates the result of the elections it is: conservatism. Dutch universities however, seem to become more and more innovative. My visits gave the impression that the traditionally rather rigid Dutch universities have become more flexible and are more open to change than they used to be.

But as I said: more posts to come on these issues...

Universities and Regional Development

Austan Goolsbee (a professor in economics at the University of Chicago) advises regions in the US to think twice about jumping the 'Sillicon Valley Bandwagon'. In an article in the New York Times he claims that funding local universities as a strategy for regional economic development is not likely to work. The need for caution is based mainly on the mobility of graduates and researchers.

Students from local colleges, frequently move out of state when they graduate:

If Stanford can hatch world-famous companies around Palo Alto, politicians assume, their colleges can, too. But with so many trying to spin universities away from their traditional academic focus into engines of economic development, it is worth considering whether investing in local universities can achieve that goal. This strategy is based on the view that research done by professors can form the basis for local start-up companies and that the graduates of the university can supply the entrepreneurs and employees.

But advocates should remember an old maxim of economic development: Beware of investing in things that can move. As it turns out, graduates and research ideas both tend to move around a lot. Subsidizing teaching is problematic as a development strategy because graduates frequently move out of state.

And ideas and inventions - even in the form of patents - are of little use when the scientists that invented them, leave. Or in the words of Lynne Zucker and Michael Darby, when they become 'disembodied discoveries':

They looked at such factors as having successful patents at universities or where highly influential science articles had originated. They found little evidence that the ideas helped local businesses any more than businesses in other areas. The one thing the study does find to be consistently associated with high-tech start-ups is the presence of star scientists - not the ideas, which can be copied, but the scientists themselves. This seems to be the one way in which a university can be used as an engine of business growth.

The importance of star scientists brings Goolsbee to the comparison with American Baseball:

Trying to make some town into the next Silicon Valley by attracting the best scientists is rather like trying to start a new baseball team and turn it into the New York Yankees. If dozens of sports-mad billionaire team owners can't do that, how easy would it be for the economic development office at the University of Texas, Arlington?

What is worse, it is a safe bet that as these development incentives become a primary motivation for financing higher education, the competition among universities for stars will start looking much more like today's baseball scene. Ambitious state university systems will find it easier to steal the stars of another team than to develop their own prospects. As a result, salaries will go through the roof - just as in baseball. And while everyone pays more, only a tiny number of cities will ever win the World Series. One will increasingly hear about how the costs of college are rising everywhere and that local economies have little to show for it.

The university's role in regional development is popular issue in higher education and innovation policies around the world, especially in Europe. So will these arguments be valid for other countries as well? I think it depends a bit on how you define the region. In the narrow definition of regions this can be the case. For instance, supporting a university in northern Finland might benefit the Helsinki region in the south more than the investing region itself. So yes, the local and regional governments should think about these arguments when planning for their own Silicon Valley. However, because the funding of universities in many countries comes to a large extent from national sources (not local or regional) the creation of these high tech areas are usually elements of a larger national innovation policy (especially in smaller countries).

If we compare the US states with countries, the mobility of graduates and star scientists might present a serious problem. If star scientists and graduates move to other countries, the national investments in these graduates and in the research of the scientists will not benefit the investing country but the host country. On the other hand, I think the mobility of graduates and scientists between the US States and between the US universities is significantly higher than between other countries and their universities.

Maybe the concept of the 'star scientists' is even very American in itself... One thing is for sure. Luring top scientists with the salaries of baseball players won't help a lot outside the US. The salaries of football players and a comparison with the Champions League might do a better job at that.

Prestigious Universities & Quality Education

Harvard, Princeton, London School of Economics. Prestigious universities with reputable academics and therefore a popular destination for students seeking high quality education. These universities score high on most rankings both internationally (THES rankings or the Shanghai Jiao Tong World Universities Ranking) and domestic (US News & World Report in the US and the Good Universities Guide in the UK). But... does that mean that students will get their high quality education?

The cover of Time (USA) and an op-ed piece for the Times Higher Education Supplement (UK) by Erik Ringmar seem to question this. Time observes that more and more students choose to attend small private colleges, even if they are admitted into the Ivy League institutions: competition for the Ivies is as fierce as ever, but kids who look beyond the famous schools may be the smartest applicants of all. Closer interaction with teachers is an important factor in this choice.

Walter Kirn, alumnus of Princeton, writes about the Ivy League X factor:

Although Princeton had far more money and mystique, its reading lists were composed of the same books, and its students were filled with the same questions. But the students carried those books with more aplomb, and they asked their questions with more confidence. That was the Ivy League's X factor. It bred confidence...

The case of Ringmar and LSE has been discussed frequently on blogs and in the mainstream media. At an LSE Open Day speech Ringmar - a senior lecturer at LSE at that time - told the future students that the real teaching was done by PhD students and that the in-class student experience was no better than they would get at the far less prestigious London Metropolitan University - in fact they might see more of the academic staff there (his Open Day speech can be found here).

In the op-ed piece, Ringmar repeats his point that it's not so much the learning experience that is valuable for students but that it's a matter of being certified:

During their first year at an elite institution like the LSE, students spend much of their time asking themselves what all the fuss is about. Obviously they know about the reputation of the School, the famous professors, the important books, the talking-LSE-heads that constantly pop up on the telly. But, the students ask, if the LSE is so great, why are many of the lecturers so boring, many exercises so useless, and why do the academics never seem to have any time for us?

An LSE diploma is not a proof of what they have learned as much as of their ability to come out on top in a neck-to-neck competition with their peers. A London Met diploma just doesn't do the same job.

Kirn seems to support this:

Even though we learned nothing at Princeton that we couldn't have learned elsewhere, the place gave us a calling card whose impact and power were undeniable. I assume it has opened doors for me, but none of the gatekeepers have said as much.

Ringmar and Kirn are both right to some extent. The additional value of a Princeton or LSE degree over a 'regular' degree is not (only) in the quality of education but also in the way these degrees open doors in the future.

However, the selection of students will also affect the quality of education, assuming that quality is determined by more than just the student-teacher interaction. The interaction between the students themselves, inside as well as outside classes, contributes at least as much. And considering the effort students need to do to get in, this interaction might be a bit more challenging in those institutions.

Whose European Higher Education?

Last Month, the Dutch Central Planning Agency (CPB; international name: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) published a report on the role of Europe in higher education: "Higher education: Time for coordination on a European level?" (in English). More specifically, they asked the question whether there are valid reasons for more European (as opposed to national) coordination of higher education. Their final conclusion is NO: there is little empirical data that supports a shift towards European coordination of higher education. The authors claim that neither economies of scale, nor the existence of external spill-overs substantially justify an increased European role.

However, looking at European developments in the last few decades, I do see that there is a shift from national coordination towards European coordination. Question then is of course: why does this happen? And who pushes for increased Europeanisation if there are no justified reasons for nation states to do so? Clearly, many other parties do have a steak in further Europeanisation of HE:

1. Students, Employers and Professions. Student mobility in Europe will have (indirect) consequences for national policies. Increased mobility will demand increased coordination and standardisation at the European level. One of the consequences here has been the European Credit Transfer System, standardising the credit systems in European systems. In the future, the principle of non-discrimination might well pose severe obstacles for the discretionary capacity of states to offer free higher education for their nationals. The CPB report shows that most students aren't very mobile and are not willing to go abroad to find quality education, but usually start their higher education close at home. I think however that - in due time - the European BaMa structure will lead to a substantial increase in mobility in the Masters stage, especially if the (financial) benefits of a prestigious 'foreign' Masters degree becomes more visible. With the increase in mobility of professionals there will also be more demand for standardisation and transparency in degrees and qualifications from the side of employers and of professional organisations (lawyers, medicine, accountants, etc). Simply said: increased movement and mobility leads to the necessity of coordination and facilitation of these flows. Be it flows of telephone calls or gigabytes or of students, academics, credits, services.

2. European Institutions. Many European rules have been created to coordinate and facilitate these flows. These rules were not at all related to higher education. Rulings of the European Court of Justice however, have had a substantial effect on the authority of national governments over their 'own' national higher education systems. In many instances, European law - that was not created to regulate higher education - indirectly affected higher education. Several ECJ cases in the 70s and 80s were related to education, revolving around issues like access to education for non-nationals in member states and eligibility for particular provisions and the relation with the principles of non-discrimination (for an excellent analysis, see Verbruggen, 2002, in Dutch). One of the best known examples of this was the Gravier Case.

Two points in the Court's ruling of the Gravier Case were relevant to the European Community's competencies in higher education. First, the ruling stated that a non-national student cannot be charged an additional fee as a condition of access if nationals of the host state do not pay the same fee. Secondly, by stating that higher education could be seen as vocational, the Court defacto extended the competencies of the Community, since vocational training was already part of the Treaty and related provisions now could also apply to (parts of) higher education.

The principle of non-discrimination together with the rules on the free mobility of persons, workers and services increasingly impact higher education even though they were not created to do so. The growing role of the ECJ in this 'Europeanisation by stealth' is illustrated by a recent example: the German medicine students in Austria. In this case, substantial national reforms can be traced back to ECJ rulings. Other national regulations on access to programmes might be proven to be counter to European law, like the case of French students applying for Belgian programmes in veterinary science and physiotherapy.

3. Universities. Universities will strategically try to lift coordination to the European level whenever they see benefits for themselves; in other cases they will ally with their national governments. The 'European level' creates an extra avenue for universities in which to operate. As a response they have created a dense network of relations with other universities in order to exploit - politically or financially - their European opportunities. With more financial resources spent on European initiatives, especially fuelled by the European Lisbon Agenda promoting innovation, universities will operate and cooperate more on a European scale in order to gain access to the financial and political resources. This lifts coordination up to a European scale directly as well as indirectly. Directly through the inter-organisational coordination of activities among universities. Indirectly through the emergence of an ever denser European policy community, existing of universities, university networks, intermediary bodies, resource providers and official EU institutions.

4. The European policy community in HE. The emergence of this European policy community in higher education has become a self-reinforcing process. The informal and formal networks and the numerous European organisations active in the field of higher education have all gained a vested interest in ongoing European integration. This is clear for official European institutions like the Commission, Parliament and ECJ, but it also goes for networks and organisations like the European University Association (EUA), National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), European Association for International Education (EAIE), Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE), the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), etc. or inter-university networks like Coimbra Group, ECIU, LERU, the Santander Group, UNICA, etc., etc., etc.

The CPB might have found that there are not many reasons for increased European coordination. I think that this will not stop the Europenisation process. All in all, I think an increasing role of 'Europe' in national higher education is inevitable. The big question however is: who is 'Europe'. Will the Commission and the ECJ take on the role previously performed by nation states in the coordination of higher education? Will it be an outcome of the interplay between universities, students, professions and employers? Or will it still be the member states, that are becoming more and more 'Europeanised' themselves. A mixture probably.

So, is it "time for coordination on a European level?" I think the question assumes too much agency, especially at the side of national governments. Whether it is time or not, it is happening. And it is not likely to stop.

Globalisation & Higher Education in *****

I found a recent post in one of my favourite blogs (or is it an online magazine?) on the demands that globalisation makes on higher education systems around the world. After reading it I noticed how global this debate has become and how it is so similar in very different parts of the world. Here are some summarising sections of the article:

The four challenges of globalization - the flight of talent, benchmarking to global standards, the possibility of education as a business opportunity, and the mismatch between supply and demand - have a common thread running through them. Inflexible and overtly regulated education systems are unlikely to respond to these challenges. Rigid academic systems all over world struggle to reposition themselves to respond to the challenges posed by globalization.

The ***** education system is one of the most tightly controlled in the world. The government regulates who you can teach, what you can teach them and what you can charge them. It also has huge regulatory bottlenecks. There are considerable entry barriers: Universities can be set up only through acts of legislation, approval procedures for starting new courses are cumbersome, syllabi revision is slow, and accreditation systems are extremely weak and arbitrary. The regulators permit relatively little autonomy for institutions and variation amongst them.

Globalization requires two contradictory transformations in the state: On the one hand, successful globalization requires that the state invest heavily in increasing access to education. But in higher education, globalization also requires the state to respect the autonomy of institutions so that a diversity of experiments can find expression, so that institutions have the flexibility to do what it takes to retain talent in a globalized world and, above all, respond quickly to growing demand. Globalization demands a paradigm shift in the regulation of higher education. In ***** the debate has only just begun.

You can fill in the *****. I think it could be Germany as well as France. China as well as Pakistan. Australia as well as Thailand. Uganda as well as South Africa. Greece as well as Italy...etc...etc. The solution can be found here.

Renaissance or Decay?

In the Financial Times, Richard Lambert proposes six steps to revitalise Europe's higher education (thanks to Biz Deans Talk for pointing me to the article). I'm glad that Lambert first of all points to the fact that there are differences within and between countries in Europe on this issue.

Countries such as the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark have in recent years greatly improved the way their universities are run. The UK has some of the best research universities in the world. But European institutions are not well placed to compete in what has become a global competition for talent. In countries such as Italy, France and Germany, there is a kind of drab uniformity across a sector that is struggling.

Higher Education across Europe is crying out for reform. Not surprisingly (from a former FT Editor), these reforms mainly mean a shift away from state control. His six steps, although not revolutionary new, make a lot of sense:

1. Governance. Universities that are an emanation of the state, as is in effect the case in France and Italy, have very little control over their resources and are unable to set relevant academic priorities. The best universities in the world all have the autonomy needed to manage their own affairs in an efficient fashion.

True! But beware that autonomy usually also brings the need for accountability. This is fine. However, governments tend to create a lot of red tape in order to make their universities accountable.

2. Funding. Higher education needs to be properly funded, meaning a figure near to 2% of GDP (while it is around 1.2% now). Lambert claims that public funding in the US is basically the same as in Europe and is appr. 1%.

This is more or less correct, although the percentage in the Scandinavian countries is much higher (see also this graph from my previous post on an OECD report). The big difference is in private funding, which is around 1.4% in the US and around 0.1% in Europe. According to Lambert, "all the big countries in Europe will sooner or later have to introduce tuition fees. The UK has started the process and Germany is moving in the same direction." In the Netherlands, tuition fees have been introduced in the 1980s and recently also in Austria. However tuition is still very modest compared to the US or UK fees. Lambert concludes that for the introduction of tuition fees "the political challenge in France will be enormous". I think that's even an understatement..

I think the US model is not the only model that is worth considering here. High public spending in Denmark, Sweden and Finland have led to high quality and accessible higher education systems in these countries. I think that, if this high public spending is combined with a modest tuition fee (giving students more power to demand quality), the quality of education is or can become on par with many of the prestigious US and UK universities.

Also, US universities operate in a very different tax environment. The US universities are not just dependent on tuition fees but also on the generosity of alumni and of private companies and foundations. Since European taxes are considerably higher than in the US, it remains to be seen whether European professionals and companies (readers of the FT?) will ever be as generous to universities as their American counterparts.

Another issue that can be related to the private funding in education is the income inequality in countries. Due to the high level of income inequality in the US - compared to for instance Scandinavian countries - the return of investment that US students get from their higher education is relatively much higher than in Europe. US students will therefore be more willing to pay for their higher education. Does that mean Europe has to increase its income inequality...?

3. Selectivity. European countries are going to have to become much more selective in the way they allocate resources. There are nearly 2000 universities in the EU, most of which aspire to conduct research and offer postgraduate degrees. By contrast, fewer than 250 US universities award postgraduate degrees and fewer than 100 are recognised as research intensive. No wonder the US dominates the league tables of the world's best research universities, given this concentration of resources.

I can agree with this to some extent. Lambert's argument however starts from the assumption that more concentration is better, and I am not sure whether that assumption is necessarily valid. The US might lead the world's top 200 of Universities but surely, Europe should not base its policies on the basis of league tables. Maybe there are 1500 universities in the top 2000 of the world's best universities and only 200 American ones? Would that be a bad thing? In general I don't think so, although there is the risk of Europe losing some of their top brains to the prestigeous institutions in the US.

Even if we want more institutional diversity (in terms of quality), this is not a change that governments or 'Europe' will decide upon. They can implement funding schemes that channel the available resources to the best researchers. Actually, they're already doing that in many/most European countries. What does Lambert want? Considering his 'liberal' attitude, I guess he does not want to implement measures for the compulsory relocation of researchers.

Take the Netherlands as an example. The 14 Dutch universities are generally seen as equal in quality. Students make their choices on the bases of the programmes these universities offer, and then probably on the basis of the attractiveness or vicinity of the city in which the university is located. Not so much on institutional quality or prestige! Much of the research funding is on a competitive basis, but - to my knowledge - there are no specific winner or loser institutions in this resource allocation process. That's simply because most of the 'top'-academics (as well as the mediocre ones) are dispersed over the 14 universities as well. Who then is going to make the selection of universities and on the basis of what? If 'the market' needs to do this, it won't happen overnight!

Lambert then continues on the issue of student selection. "Selectivity is also important when it comes to accepting students. World-class universities have to be free to pick their own talent rather than to take what comes - as happens now in large parts of Europe."

For continental Europe we need to ask ourselves again: who are these world-class universities? In principle I see no wrong in selection. Although I think that the greatest quality of the world's most prestigious institutions (the Harvards, MITs, and the Oxbridges) is not so much that a student benefits from their quality of teaching (since the first-class teachers usually will have their minds elsewhere than on undergraduate teaching), but that they benefit from the challenging interaction with their fellow students.

On the other hand, selection in European universities is not something you can just implement overnight, as was experienced by Leiden University. They experimented with selection on the basis of high school grades. After a year they concluded that this would exclude too many students that turned out to perform very well in university (even though they might have had low grades in high school).

I think selection is simply not as easy as it sounds. First of all, students have to be able to choose (see step 4, below). Second, it brings along a culture of competition which might not (yet) be fully compatible with the European higher education 'culture'. What is also often overlooked here is that a lot of selection does take place within Europe, but usually in the earlier phases, through a differentiation in high schools.

4. Diversity. Europe needs to develop a much more diverse system of higher education. Rather than attempting to make them all equal, the aim should be to create a rich mix of institutions - some offering world-class teaching and research, others concentrating on regional or local needs. Germany recognises this challenge with its plans to fund a small group of elite institutions.

This of course relates to the issue of selectivity again. Again, my question to Lambert would be: how can we achieve this? I don't know about the Germany initiative that he writes about, but how does that work? If they are already elite institutions, the diversity does already exist. If they become elite because of the selective government funding, on the basis of what were they chosen and more important, by whom? Most of Lamberts suggestions start from a market prespective. Closing down universities or privileging some universities over others does not really fit within this framework.

5. Curriculum reform. This is already under way in more than 40 countries across the Continent, through what is known as the Bologna process. It is essential that universities manage this change efficiently - and that employers recognise the value of bachelor degrees, rather than insisting that recruits should spend five or six years in higher education.

I think Lambert touches upon an important issue here: how will the labour market value the European bachelor degrees. My impression is that many students and many employers will see the former degrees (such as Licentiate, Doctorandus degree, Magister degree, and what have you) as roughly equivalent to the new Master degree. I think universities really need to design the BA/BSc in such a way that it does respond to the demands of the labour markets and that they need to convince students and future employers of this. On the other hand, universities probably want to retain their BA/BSc students and try to convince them to do a postgraduate degree. After all: more students = more money...

6. Avoid top-down initiatives. Europe needs to avoid the temptation of top-down initiatives, which invariably turn out to be expensive distractions. The European Institute of Technology proposed by José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, is a classic of this type. Much better to devote any extra funding to the new European Research Council, which will allocate its money solely on the basis of peer-reviewed excellence.

I tend to agree with this. Central planning simply does not mix very well with innovation. But the same goes for the selection of elite universities which is necessary for a more diversified system (step 4 and 5). Institutional diversity from the bottum-up is something that gradually needs to evolve out of competitive selection. This however is a process that will take a long time and needs more than just a change in funding mechanisms. It also requires a cultural switch in the mindset of many universities and education ministries, and also in the mindsets of students and employers.

Higher Education in Europe is changing. In some countries these changes have been more radical than in others. Some countries - in their desire to create their own Harvards or MITs - follow blindly what the 'experts' say. In other countries, minor changes cause major disturbances, paralysing their higher education systems. Reforms are necessary, but these reforms need to be compatible with the wider political, cultural and economic environment in Europe. Creating a European MIT sounds flashy, but starting from your own strengths sounds more realistic.

The article in the FT was based on a report of the Centre for European Reform, co-authored by Richard Lambert: The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or decay?

Safe Surfing

A quote from the Wired Campus blog of the Chronicle on the question of whether to ban laptops in class or not:

"Professors worry that as wireless networks and laptops become ubiquitous, students will direct about as much attention to the front of the room as airline passengers do to a flight attendant reviewing safety information."

...and keep your tray table and seat in the full upright position

For my flight to the United States I took some news articles that might be of interest and on which I might post later on. Here's a list of what I thought might be worthwile:

An article on the risks that Australian universities are taking by focusing so (too?) heavily on the international student market. Universities are risking their academic reputation by rushing into dubious offshore ventures and are leaving themselves financially exposed as the boom in overseas students tapers off. A report from NSW Auditor-General Bob Sendt finds universities have become too reliant on overseas students and need to find other sources of revenue:

• Foreign risks for universities (The Australian)

And in Europe, the Commission recently came up with some recommendations on how to improve higher education and make it more responsive. Or in other words, the present some thoughts on:

• why European higher education systems must be modernised? (EC Memo)
  

Although the Commission does not have any substantial authority in the field of higher education, they more and more try to incorporate higher ed. in their Lisbon Strategy. Often, they prefer to do that by using the power of exaggeration. The European Commissioner for Education has a stark warning:

• Get a grip or be 'beautiful museums' (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

But the universities themselves have some toughts about this issue as well. The League of European Research Universities (Leru), said: "We welcome the recent EU acknowledgement that universities play a key role in society, but there must be much more emphasis on the diversity of universities, and funding must be based on the excellence of their particular outputs." Read about it here:

• Europe's top 20 demand action (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

And then on a more general topic.. While global competition intensifies, governments devise strategies to protect jobs, industries and reputation. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization analyzes contrasting approaches to managing globalization that have emerged in Europe, one from France and the other from Denmark.

• Europe Faces Globalization-Part I
• Europe Faces Globalization-Part II

But of course there's also a fully loaded iPod [lots of songs and some podcasts, among which the podcasts of the ongoing Key Concepts Public Lecture Series of the Research Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Sydney], and a good book. Hopefully that's enough to get me from SYD, over the ocean to SFO and via ORD to RDU.

The costs of free education?

Higher Education in 'Old Europe' has had some pretty bad exposure again. Examples from Germany and France show that free education can be pretty costly. The Dutch ScienceGuide has a small item on an awkward German issue. Roughly translated and summarised:

Five lecturers for 3000 students in German Linguistics was not sufficient at Paderborn University. "One professor had been ill for a long time and another lectureship was discontinued" the students complained and they took matters in their own hands. They collected money and recruited a lecturer from Bielefeld. She responded: "Of course I can only do this because it is only a onetime solution and because I'm very flexible due to my half-time position in Bielefeld." The executive board of the university has to check whether this complies with the university regulations. After the introduction of tuition fees next year (which was a controversial issue) both the university and the students hope for a more permanent solution.

This of course is a unique situation. The New York Times however, reports on the Nanterre campus of the University of Paris to illustrate the general situation in French higher education (except for the Grand Ecoles). Read for yourself and you'll conclude that it's not a pretty picture. In my view, the following passage best illustrates the cost of free education:

A second-year student in law and history complained about the lack of courses in English for students of international law. But asked whether he would be willing to pay a higher fee for better services, he replied: "The university is a public service. The state must pay." A poster that hangs throughout the campus halls echoed that sentiment: "To study is a right, not a privilege."

Of course, education is (to some extent) a 'right' that should be accessible regardless of class or status. But if free education can't be sustained, high quality education seems to become a privilege for the few.

Publishing & Open Access

Two related issues on the US academic publishing business were widely reported upon in the media in the last 2 weeks. The first was the National Institutes of Health policy on public access to research findings. The second, the proposal of a bill by Republican Senator Cornyn (Texas) and Democratic Senator Lieberman (Connecticut) requiring public access to federally funded research.

On February 3, 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. Although the NIH strongly encourages that a manuscript be made available to other researchers and the general public immediately after it has been published in a journal, the Policy allows an author to delay the manuscript's release for up to 12 months. Participation in the Public Access Policy is voluntary. The rate of submission to the system in the first 8 months has been less than 4 percent of the total number of articles estimated to be eligible.

The Chronicle however reports that momentum continues to build outside the NIH, and outside the United States, for mandatory posting of manuscripts in centralized free online repositories. In April, the European Commission released a report (pdf) calling for a guarantee of free access to all publicly sponsored research.

But in May, the two senators from Connecticut and Texas introduced a bill that would require every federal agency that sponsors more than $100-million annually in research to establish an online repository and make its grantees deposit their articles within six months of publication. The bill would apply to 11 agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and NASA.

"It will ensure that US taxpayers do not have to pay twice for the same research - once to conduct it and a second time to read it," Senator Cornyn told Congress.

Obviously, this proposal ignited a fierce reaction from the scientific publishing industry. Representatives from the publishers come with all kind of reactions:

Science addresses this issue:

Some publishers argue that there's no evidence the public is as interested in, say, high energy physics papers as in health research. "You're just expanding this willy-nilly on the assumption that there's the same clamor," says Allan Adler, vice president for legal and governmental affairs for the Association of American Publishers. Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological Society, argues that if the bill became law, it could be especially damaging to "small niche area" journals in disciplines such as ecology that have not yet experimented much with open-access journals that recoup publication costs from authors rather than subscribers.

And so does the New York Times:

Scientific data is easily misinterpreted, said Joann Boughman, executive vice president of the American Society of Human Genetics, publisher of The American Journal of Human Genetics. "Consumers themselves are saying, 'We have the right to know these things as quickly as we can.' That is not incorrect. However, wherever there is a benefit, there is a risk associated with it."

And the Washington Post:

Patricia S. Schroeder, president and chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, promised a fight. "It is frustrating that we can't seem to get across to people how expensive it is to do the peer review, edit these articles and put them into a form everyone can understand," Schroeder said. [Isn't the peer review something that academics do...for free...? Ed.]

And the Guardian:

But the Association of American Publishers warned that the law would jeopardise the integrity of the scientific publishing process. Association member Brian Crawford warned it "would create unnecessary costs for taxpayers, place an unwarranted burden on research investigators, and expropriate the value-added investments made by scientific publishers, many of them not-for-profit associations who depend on publishing income to support pursuit of their scholarly missions".

I guess there are a lot of vested interests here.. The bill will probably discussed later this year. It would be about time for some fundamental changes in the publishing industry. To me it remains a strange phenomenon that an academic writes an article or book for free, then his or her colleagues do the peer review for free and then (often after 2 years or so) they have to pay to get (on-line) access to the articles or books. Or do I fail to see something here?

Multi Billion Pound Meltdown

One evening of BBC News:

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 16:47 GMT 17:47 UK
University offer 'will cost jobs'
Many universities will struggle to honour a pay offer to their staff of 12.6%, a vice-chancellor has said.

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 22:45 GMT 23:45 UK
'Meltdown' threat to universities
Universities will face "meltdown" unless the dispute over lecturers' pay is quickly resolved, a union leader is expected to warn.

Wednesday, 10 May 2006, 22:56 GMT 23:56 UK
Universities 'worth 45 billion Pounds a year'
Higher education is worth 45 billion Pounds a year to the UK economy - more than the aircraft or pharmaceutical industries - a report says.

The 7 secrets of doctoral mediocrity

Many, many, many books have been written on how to obtain a Ph.D degree or how to write a Ph.D thesis. I'm not really into self-help books, but I heard that some books are really helpful. In the Higher Education section of The Australian, Maria Gardiner and Hugh Kearns of Flinders University share their 7 secrets of doctoral success.

During the past 15 years the pair has studied why students battle with perfectionism, over-commit, self-sabotage and lose motivation and focus while writing a PhD. They offer free workshops and seminars to Flinders University PhD students, attracting hundreds of students to 'the seven secrets of highly successful PhD students' seminar.

"We'll have a group of probably 10 confident PhD students and at the end of probably an hour and a half they're all saying: 'I don't think I'm good enough to do this.' [Good Work!, Ed.] Those negative feelings lead to procrastination and other feelings."

One participant of their workshops explains how it works:

"I was the coffee shop's No.1 customer. I was the sort of person who sat around talking and not doing much." But after learning he did not have to be perfect and his work was unlikely to be worthy of winning a Nobel prize, Mr Moore finished his PhD on schedule. "It helped me to understand it wasn't the most important thing in the world ... and recognition that it didn't have to be perfect," he said.

It is so simple. You just lower the expectations, compromise quality, and make students realise that nothing needs to be perfect and you have created highly successful PhD students. You see, it's not that difficult. After all, to undertake a PhD you only need 10 per cent intelligence and 90 per cent persistence. According to Mr. Kearns.

And if you make it to defending your Ph.D thesis, Kerry Soper has 12 tips on "What not to say at your Dissertation Defense"

Around the World in 1 Post

I haven't had the time to write many posts this week. Besides, I did not come across any news items of real urgency this week. However, a few items caught my attention.

***

First, there was an interesting statement of Australia's Minister of Education Julie Bishop. She claims that uniform degree structures, a diploma supplement and international recognition of qualifications are among radical changes Australia needs to adopt to meet competition from a powerful higher education bloc forming in Europe. She warns that if Australia does not align itself with the changes taking place in 45 European countries under the Bologna Declaration, it will be left out of the tent. The risk is that students will no longer want to study here and those who graduate from Australian universities will find it harder to have their qualifications recognised overseas.

"The Bologna process seems likely to have a profound effect on the development of higher education globally," the paper says, acknowledging that other continents are considering it. "Lack of movement on Bologna compatibility will make it harder for Australia to demonstrate to the Europeans its bona fides in this area."

Julie Bishop expressed her concerns at a meeting of 30 education ministers from the Asia Pacific in Brisbane where they discussed their response to the challenges posed by the European Bologna Process. I have heard some people in Southeast Asia also expressing an interest in joining the process or starting a similar regional process in the region.

***

A second item is not really new, but worthwhile to read. The US News & World Report has an article on 'Blogging your way to academe'. It's about the perils and promises of academics that maintain a weblog that is somehow related to their academic activities. Some time ago the Chronicle published a few letters by 'Ivan Tribble' about the risks of blogging and especially, academic bloggers using their own names.

I haven't read much about this issue in Europe or Australia. Australia has some respected academics that maintain a weblog. Some examples from political science and economics are John Quiggen from the University of Queensland and the group blog 'Larvatus Prodeo' maintained by Mark Bahnisch of Griffith University. Some in Australia even argue that academics should blog or be damned (but obviously his arguments are rather weak and one-sided). And of course there are the Sydney Uni students blogging their way through campus life.

In the Netherlands I have not yet come across many academic bloggers. I think some members of the popular group blog Sargasso are academics. One of their new members, a female scientists that goes by the name of Akufu, keeps an individual academic weblog as well. If anyone is aware of any other Dutch academic bloggers, let me know!

***

A final thing that caught my attention is not so much a current issue but is something that has astonished me for some time now. For my own research I keep track of the news related to higher education and science in Southeast Asia and especially Malaysia and Indonesia. What amazes me about the mainstream media in Malaysia is their extensive coverage of higher education related issues. Higher education (and education in general) takes in such an important position in Malaysian society and politics that issues related to the quality of their universities are widely reported. The issue about university rankings for instance was widely discussed in the Star. The recent resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Malaya and the search for his successor also featured prominently in this newspaper. This week, the selection of a few bright Malaysian students by a range of reputable US universities was shared with the rest of the nation (thanks goes to the Education in Malaysia blog for keeping me up to date).

Academic Champions League?

In the latest Higher Education section of The Australian it is all about research assessment. The Australian Government has planned to introduce a Research Quality Framework (RQF) which is largely based on the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The RAE is a peer review exercise to evaluate the quality of research in UK higher education institutions. The introduction of the RAE has improved universities' research performance (in terms of impact of publications) and created greater research concentration.

It' s a rather strange moment to introduce the RQF because the UK has plans to abolish the RAE and return to a system that looks more like the current Australian model. In the words of Snitch:

"So Britain is scrapping its research assessment exercise just as Australia prepares to introduce one. What's more, Britain is returning to a metric system of measuring quality, just like the one Australia uses now."

One very visible result of the RAE is the concentration of research. Obviously this gives less concerns to Australia's leading universities (joined in the Group of 8) than to the other players. It's expected that most of the research funding will be concentrated in these 8 research intensive universities.

Although the framework has not been implemented yet, some of the consequences are already visible in anticipation of the RQF:

"In a significant loss for RMIT University, a leading expert in biomedical sciences has left the campus, taking his entire staff of 15, his laboratory and research grants worth nearly $1 million a year to a research quality framework-free medical institute. As universities prepare for greater competition under the framework, global diabetes specialist Mark Febbraio has announced he will leave RMIT for the Baker Heart Research Institute in Melbourne, blaming the impending introduction of the RQF and its effect on universities outside the Group of Eight."

Many of the universities outside the group of 8 complain that criteria for societal and economic relevance are missing in the framework, and this will even increase the diversion of funds away from the technological universities to the Group of 8. The concentration of research will likely lead to a 'bidding war on stars'. An Australian equivalent of a European Champions League, where the Barcelonas, the Milans, the Arsenals and the Inters will always be in the semi-finals because they can afford to buy the best players?

On the other hand, maybe not:

"The plan to introduce a national assessment system for research quality has stalled after federal Education Minister Julie Bishop announced yesterday she was setting up another advisory group to consider it."

Higher Education and Europe (again)

Last Wednesday, 1500 students and teachers protested in Brussels against reforms to the Belgian Francophone higher education system. The reforms will restrict the number of foreign students in particular degrees like veterinary science and physiotherapy. Many French students currently study in Belgium because they are required to go through entrance exams in France.

The Times Higher Education Supplement has an article on the issue (subscription required):

The law, due to be introduced in September, is intended to cut the number of non-Belgians accepted on certain courses. In veterinary medicine, 86% of university students enrolled in 2005-06 had completed secondary education outside Belgium, while for physiotherapy the figure was 78%.

The law will set a cap of 30% for non-resident students on courses that had more than 40% foreign enrolment the year before. The cap will apply to chiropody, speech therapy and obstetrics. The Government argues that the influx of non-residents reduces resources per student, causes problems finding external placements and risks reducing the number of professionals who remain in Belgium.

Student groups and academic unions continue to mount demonstrations. Students have been particularly vocal, complaining that the measure is against the spirit of open access and mobility promoted by the Bologna Process. The Government disagrees, pointing out that 30% is still 12 times the European average for non-resident students.

This case looks a lot like the Europeanisation by stealth in Austria on which I posted in this blog in February. In Austria the case was about medicine and German students. In order to avoid an influx of foreign students to study medicine in Austria, the ministry established special requirements for foreign EU students. These requirements however were illegal according to an ECJ court ruling because this was seen as discrimination on the basis of nationality and contradictory to Article 12 of the Treaty, the non-discrimination principle.

My (limited) knowledge of European law therefore says that the Belgian reform will not be allowed by the European Court of Justice. Instead of referring to the (intergovernmental) Bologna Process, the students might better call upon the (supranational) EU Treaties.

Camping for Belarus

The Dutch higher education and science magazine 'Scienceguide' has kept a close watch on the developments in Belarus and on the student/youth movement 'Zubr' (Bison) in particular. In the wake of the elections, several students were arrested for opposing the government. After almost a week on the Kastrychnitskaya Square, protesters have been brutally removed from the square on Thursday.

Members of the European Parliament have posed questions for Brussels about the violent actions of the Lukashenko regime. Until now, the EU has not acted very convincingly on the issue and Zubr reports on several violations by the regime in the last days.

More bottom-up actions are emerging in Europe. Yesterday, Danish protesters have set up a tent camp at the Russian Embassy. The tents were set up in solidarity with the defenders of the tent camp on the Kastrychnitskaya Square of Minsk. The demonstrators protest against the actions of the Russian government, which continues to support the Lukashenko regime.

Scienceguide also has a call for Dutch support for the Belarus protesters:

Today (25 March) 12 o'clock there will be a demonstration for solidarity with the 'Denim-revolution' in Belarus on the Museum Square in Amsterdam. This day also happens to be the former 'Day of Freedom' holiday in Belarus before the Lukashenko regime abolished this holliday. The activities are organised by student and youth organisations. More information can be found at denim-revolution.hyves.nl.

Update: an eyewitness account on the developments prior to the crackdown on October square can be found here.

Dutch Arrogance?

Although this week the US and the UK reported that their numbers of foreign students were increasing again, the Dutch Immigration Office says that the number of granted student visas has decreased from 8800 in 2002 to 5900 in 2004.

Part of this decrease is due to the EU enlargement since students from Central and Eastern Europe don't have to report to the Immigration Office anymore. The number of students from China and Morocco decreased by one third while for some other countries like South Africa, Iran and Ghana the number decreased by 50%.

The Nuffic (the Netherlands organization for international cooperation in higher education) claims that getting a visa can take up to 8 months. In addition, the visas are amongst the most expensive in Europe. The Dutch Association of Universities wants the regulations to become more flexible: "if we continue like this, the flow of students and researchers will slowly come to a stop".

The Minister for Higher Education has an other view on things:

"In the past there were Chinese students that applied here while they could hardly speak English. It's not our goal to attract as many foreign students as possible, but that we attract the best"

The Dutch higher education system is of good quality, but thinking that the best students from all over the world will come to the Netherlands at any cost might just be a bit arrogant. If bright students think of applying in the Netherlands, you better make the process as flexible as possible. The best students got plenty of other options!

Update: in response to the Volkskrant article, the Immigration Office reports on its website that applications for student visas increased again in 2005 to 6527. It also claims that the process of obtaining a visa was shortened in the past year.

Overseas Students Returning?

The talk about crisis in international student numbers in the UK and the US six months ago, may have been al little premature. The UK and the US are the major destinations for overseas students but due to stricter visa regulations after 9/11 and the London Bombings, the number of foreign students were dropping. Australia remained a popular destination and continental Europe slightly increased its position.

The NYT and the Guardian now report that the students are slowly returning. British universities recruited 6% more students from outside the UK last year. Although good news for university bank balances, the rate of increase slowed compared to the previous year. China still supplies by a large margin the biggest group of overseas students - including postgraduates - followed by India, the United States, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

A survey in the US found that the number of students applying for graduate programmes increased from 11% from the year before. Despite the increase, the number of applications remained lower than in the years before 2003. The number of foreign students applying declined by 28 percent in 2003-4, a previous survey showed, and by an additional 5 percent in the following academic year.

The Economics of Selective Knowledge

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Lisbon Council:

In a landmark study, OECD education expert details poor performance of European education. Europe risks falling further behind in 21st century economic race unless it manages to make skills and knowledge a top priority.

The OECD:

The economics of knowledge: Why education is key to Europe's success. In a study released by the Lisbon Council, OECD education expert Andreas Schleicher shows that educational progress in Europe is lagging behind, in terms of the quality and quantity of its graduates, in openness of its education systems to students from all social backgrounds and in the availability of continuing education and training to those who need it most.

The BBC:

Europe's skills fall behind Asia.

The Telegraph:

Old Europe 'being outpaced by Asian higher education'

-------------------------------------------------------------

This 'landmark' study offers no more than a collection of graphs and some comments that, in many cases, are not at all based on the graphs. The reason why the Lisbon Council calls it a landmark study is probably because the outcomes are directly in line with their goals (many of which I agree with) and because they commissioned the study. It is not that I don't agree with the recommendations, it is not that I ignore the problems.

It is the way in which the recommendations and conclusions lack support, the way in which statistics are used selectively, the way in which glossy policy briefs are presented as landmark studies and the way in which they are reported in the media. And then there's something that I noted before here and here: the way in which Europe can always be used to support your arguments by just cherry-picking the country that fits that argument.

Let's go through the report step by step and do some selective nitpicking.

The report starts of with its main conclusion and some key recommendations. In the end I'll come back to the recommendations, but the main conclusion is: education pays off, always! Not true. Education also has a point where the benefits are optimal and there after its marginal benefit will decrease (for more myths on education and economic growth see: Does Education Matter, Alison Wolf, 2002).

Then the report tries to make a point for higher education as a private investment. In Fig. 1, it is claimed that investment in education gives higher return rates than real interest rates. Basically this translates to: it's better to go to school than to put your money in the bank. Fine.., but nor very useful. However, the graph also shows that the private rate of return is a lot higher in the US (I guess because of bigger income inequalities) and therefore the graph makes a good case for private investment (meaning tuition fees) for the US and the UK, but less so for other countries.

Fig. 2 shows that if you are better educated, you will earn more. That obviously is the case everywhere. However, it is highest in Hungary, the UK, the US and Korea and the pattern tells more about the differences in income inequalities than about differences in education. More education pays of, especially for Hungarian males! The most interesting observations in the table is probably the fact that female Korean university graduates earn around 2.5 times more than their male colleagues. And in the UK they earn about a quarter more than their male colleagues.

Somehow, Fig. 3 & 4 show that "Countries that give individuals one additional year of education can boost productivity and raise economic output by 3% to 6% over time" (p.4) (although I can't really see how the graphs support that). Table 3 basically says that a decrease in unemployment and an increase in productivity will lead to a higher GDP per capita. Not really rocket science. Table 4 however is supposed to show us that education drives labour productivity. If that were the case, the red parts in the graph would gradually increase together with labour productivity. As we can see, the growth in the level of education seems to show no relation at all with labour productivity!! And I wonder how the annual percentage change in the level of education is measured anyway. In addition, the data for both graphs are from 1990-2000, the pre-Lisbon era.

Then we move to the issue of access and participation. This has increased everywhere, but not in the same way. The first point that is made is about the remarkable progress of Korea and how it climbed from rank 21 to 3, in terms of the proportion of the population with tertiary education. This remarkable growth, as is shown in this graph, can be mainly attributed to the policies in the 1980s. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Ireland also made significant progress, the report says. Obviously these countries were clearly lagging behind many other OECD countries in the 60s and needed to catch up.

Then the report continues: "most of Europe's major economies, including France Italy and the UK, only held their ground or, in the case of Germany, significantly fell." This is true for the whole post-war era. On the other hand, and the report does not mention that, this graph shows that there was a considerable growth in people with tertiary degrees in the 1990s in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Poland, France, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Turkey and Portugal.

Then there's quality. On the basis of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking of universities (that only featured 2 European universities in the top 20), the report concludes that Europe "is running behind in the quality of the graduates it produces". A slightly bold conclusion from a ranking in which quality of education (measured in the amount of Nobel Prize and Field Medal winners among their alumni!) counts for only 10% of the total score. If we look only at the quality of the graduates, there would be 5 European universities in the top 20, instead of 2. And besides, the report does not mention that the 'Korean miracle' is not present at all in the top 100 of the ranking.

After praising American higher education the report switches to secondary education: "the results are not much more encouraging". On the basis of the OECD PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) data, it concludes that "students in very few of Europe's most important countries performed much above the OECD average and many performed below it." Pretty vague statement. Since we were comparing with the US anyway, let me rephrase that somewhat differently (as shown here for the case of math skills): "students in 18 European countries performed above the US average and four performed below". And that while it spends so much more on education. It's not my intention here to criticize American education, I just try to make clear how statistics are used selectively.

And then it's time for the public-private debate. I already pointed to the fact that the private rates of return of tertiary education are higher in the US than in many other countries and that that could justify the fact that there is more private spending in the US, as this graph shows. A better reflection of public-private benefits in the funding of European higher education can be justified in my opinion. There are several studies, like this dissertation, that support that, but there is no way that you can support that on the basis of this data!

After a story on 'what is so great about Finland' the report continues with access and participation in relation to social backgrounds. The point here is that the US, Australia, Japan and Korea have improved access in higher education by letting students pay for their education. "Most (?) continental European countries are holding back their universities by neither making the public investment nor charging tuition fees". However, other OECD data shows that such an increase in participation has also taken place in predominantly publicly funded education in countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

With regard to the issue of equity versus school autonomy, the report shows this table. Finland supposedly steers on outcomes: teachers and schools have a lot of freedom in what they teach and how they teach, as long as the results are ok. Other countries, on the left side of the graph, want to guarantee that everyone gets an equal education. However, the result of the latter strategy is that kids from 'better' social backgrounds are more likely to enter universities and therefore it increases inequality. There is a logic in this kind of reasoning. However, considering that all Nordic countries are concentrated at the right side of the graph, it might also (or additionally) be that equity is enhanced by a high degree of public funding of the education system. After all, this way there is no reason for richer students to get better quality education than poor background students. I think that here the report again fails to present a complete picture.

Another interesting passage is the following about social mobility: "Here lies perhaps the biggest disappointment in Europe's education systems. Many of them make ambitious claims when it comes to securing equity in learning opportunities. But the OECD's PISA study reveals that social background plays a larger role in determining a student's performance in countries such as Germany, France and Italy than in the U.S. (..) In many countries, the data suggest that European schools reinforce existing socio-economic inequities." In a report full of tables and graphs, I would have loved to see one on this data! If we look for instance to a study by the Education Policy Institute (p.40) that also looked at the relation of social background and participation in higher education, we can see in this table that it is at least not correct to talk about 'Europe' in this sense.

An interesting point however (but again no data) is that participation seems to decrease if student pathways are established early in the educational career. In Germany for instance, kids are divided for the academic or vocational track already at the age of 10. In Dutch education, I had to make those choices at the age of 12.

Finally then, there is continuing education. Europe underperforms here as well, although again, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are doing well, especially for the groups that need it most. In the US, the continuing education market is also large, but there the lower level segment only accounts for a small part.

Having gone through the report, let's have a look at the recommendations:

1) Create and maintain a system of diverse, sustainable and high-quality educational institutions with the freedom to respond to demand and accountable for the outcomes they produce

2) Ensure that the growth and development of tertiary educational systems are managed to improve access, raise quality and enhance equity

3) Implement financing and student-support policies which mobilize public and private funding in ways that better reflect the social and private benefits of tertiary education

4) Encourage universities to evolve so that their leadership and strategic management capacity matches that of modern enterprises, with appropriate strategic, financial and human resource techniques to ensure long-term financial sustainability and accountability requirements, and

5) Ensure that universities are governed by bodies that reflect a much wider range of stakeholder interests than the academic community

Only the second and third recommendation can be directly related to the report, although no data was presented on these issues. The other three might be useful but seem to come out of the blue. I repeat that I don't necessarily disagree with the recommendations and that I don't ignore the problems (like some politicians do). But I don't think that the ends always justify the means..

Technology Transfer and the Ownership of Science

The Association of University Technology Managers represents professionals in the field of technology transfer and tries to develop and promote best practices in the profession. Universities have seen a significant increase in technology transfer activity. Before 1980, fewer than 250 patents were issued to U.S. universities each year and discoveries were seldom commercialized for the public's benefit. In contrast, in 2002, AUTM members reported that 4673 new license agreements were signed. Between 1991 and 2002, new patents filed increased more than 310 percent to 7741 and new licenses and options executed increased more than 365 percent to 4673.

The AUTM contributes much of the success in university technology transfer and the resulting economic and health benefits to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980:

Co-sponsored by Senators Birch Bayh and Robert Dole, the Bayh-Dole Act enabled universities, nonprofit research institutions and small businesses to own and patent inventions developed under federally funded research programs. Before the passage of this legislation, new discoveries resulting from federally sponsored research passed immediately into the public domain. The provisions of the act, however, provided an incentive for universities to protect their innovations and, therefore, for industry to make high-risk investments resulting in products made from those innovations.

In 2005, the AUTM launched The Better World Project to explain in everyday terms how academic research and technology transfer have changed our way of life and made the world a better place (their words, not mine, ed). Recently they issued two reports that provide information on technology transfer projects ranging from Honeycrisp apples, Google, the V-chip, nicotine patches and Taxol. The reports are available online:

The Better World Report.

Technology Transfer Stories: 25 Innovations That Changed the World (1 MB)

and the other one:

Reports From the Field.

Technology Transfer Works: 100 Cases From Research to Realization (1.2 MB)

In 2004, two institutions in New York City accounted for about 20 percent of all revenues reported. Columbia University earned more than $116-million, and New York University reported earnings of more than $109-million. The concentration of licensing revenue among a small number of universities is typical. Eight institutions accounted for more than half of all revenues reported. At least 22 institutions besides Columbia reported earnings of $10-million or more.

Universities share proceeds from commercialization with inventors. Although formulas vary, inventors typically receive about one-third of the total. In many cases, additional allocations from the institution's share go to their school, department, or laboratory.

Obviously, allowing universities to generate profits for themselves and the companies that license the inventions, while the research is funded by tax-payers, does raise questions and criticism. Who should own science? In the past years, several books have been published that critique the commercialization of research (and other academic capitalist activities in the knowledge factory / university in ruins) or at least point to the risk of the market or the paradox of the marketplace.

Despite all the criticism, the US approach to technology transfer is still used as the model for many non-US universities. Their approach is increasingly being copied in countries in Europe and Asia and other parts of the world.

Multidimensional Carnegie Classification

Today, the The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has presented its new classification of U.S. colleges and universities. The main differences at the research-end is a change from two types of research universities (intensive and extensive) to three types:

• Research Universities (very high research activity)
• Research Universities (high research activity)
• Doctoral/Research Universities

Other changes in the classification are discussed here at Inside HigherEd and in this pdf-document of the Foundation. According to Carnegie President Lee S. Shulman, the classification has become more multidimensional as a response to the increasingly complex higher education sector:

"The basic classification has been changed because the higher education landscape has become increasingly complex and multifaceted. We concluded that attempting to shoehorn all institutions into one category had introduced distortions, inaccuracies and obscurities that could be avoided. We introduced the five new classifications to reflect these complexities. And because many will rely on the basic classification as the 'front door' to the other classifications, we also decided to update and improve the basic system as well."

In Europe, the development of a similar classification is slowly getting started. Last year in August, a preliminary study on the possibilities for pan European institutional profiling was published (written by a broad group of experts, including several ex-colleagues of mine): Institutional Profiles, towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. In this report, the shift to a multidimensional classification (like the 5 new classifications in the Carnegie) was already proposed.

The European group is also talking with the Carnegie Foundation about a global classification.

EIT: European MIT, Technological EUI or none of the above?

The European Commission will propose to the European Council to set up a European Institute of Technology, also known as the European MIT. The Commission President Barosso puts it like this: "Excellence needs flagships: that is why Europe must have a strong European Institute of Technology, bringing together the best brains and companies and disseminating the results throughout Europe"

The EIT will not be a brick-and-mortar institution. Its structure will consist of two levels: a Governing Board with a small supporting administration and a set of Knowledge Communities, distributed all over Europe. These Knowledge Communities carry out the activities in strategic trans-disciplinary areas. The EIT is expected to receive funding from a variety of sources including the EU, the Member States and the business community.

In terms of research, I can not really see what will be the difference with another proposed institution: the European Research Council. In my view, the major difference is that the EIT, unlike the ERC, is primarily focused on technology and its relation to industry. According to the Commission:

"The EIT will be a knowledge operator, not a funding agency as such. It will carry out activities around the three parts of the knowledge triangle: it will educate, do research, and seek to apply the outcomes of that research to commercial ends. (...)The European Research Council is a proposal under the Seventh Framework Programme. It will provide funding to research projects which push forward the frontiers of our knowledge, taking us into new areas. It will fund individual teams or even individuals, on the basis of the sole criterion of excellence."

The knowledge communities in the framework programmes were organized in so-called Networks of Excellence. Again, here I do not see too much added value in comparison to the ERC. The Commission says that:

"..while participants in the Networks of Excellence simply agree to cooperate, the EIT involves a much closer relationship. Institutions and companies will not merely be connected and exchanging information; they will be working together on a daily basis towards common objectives."

However, what I miss most in the proposal is any statement about the way that education will be organized in the EIT. Since it physically is not a real university, but relies on its knowledge communities, where do students go? The commission is very explicit that it wants to incorporate education and that it also in that sense is different from the ERC. However I have failed to see any concrete proposal on the educational activities of the EIT. Will they physically be located in one university? Or do they go from one university to another (like in the Erasmus Mundus Programme)? Who is responsible for developing the curriculum? Can the EIT award degrees?

It is obvious that the name European Institute of Technology implies that it in some way wants to emulate the success of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Of course, the MIT has a very good reputation and this reputation is to a considerable extent based on its research. But also in terms of education it ranks as one of the best in the US. Proposing an EIT without any idea about your education (except saying that you want to be excellent) is an insult to the reference to MIT.

Apart from some political issues (location, location), I don't see why there should not be a brick and mortar institution somewhere in Europe. And then, why not take the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, Italy as an example. After all, this university has gained an excellent reputation in the social sciences. The idea of a brick and mortar EIT was still real in October 2005, when Scotland placed a bid to host the institute. Maybe, in terms of location (and climate), the Commission should also learn from the EUI in Florence..

Students in Belarus

The Dutch online higher education magazine 'Scienceguide' reported on the precarious situation of students in Belarus. Here is my translation:

With the upcoming presidential elections of March 19, Belarus dictator Lukashenko is acting in the way we know him. Again, he uses students as a target in order to intimidate civilians. During a memorial procession to commemorate 'lost' members of the political opposition and journalists, 20 members of the student movement Zoebr have been arrested. Because recently the public voicing of discontent with the regime became liable to punishment (because of 'attack on the good name of the nation'), one should fear for the fate of the students.

Zoebr president Jevgeni Afanagel and his colleagues were already arrested and accused of vandalism at a gathering where they were planning a demonstration. Also, an opposition leader has been convicted to two and a half year in a penal camp. This happened even though his charge - accepting donations from abroad for his political activities - was withdrawn suddenly.

Lukashenko is also known as Europe's last dictator. He has totally isolated the country from other European and many Asian countries. Not just political ties with the west are non-existent, but also relations in other fields such as higher education. It is typical that the Belarus has also refrained itself from participating in the European Bologna process, a European reform process aiming at establishing a European Higher Education Area by 2010. Even though in 2005 countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine joined the process, Belarus remains a white spot on the map.

This happens to be very well illustrated on the cover of a book that I am currently reading: Universities and the Europe of Knowledge; Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education 1955-2005 (by Anne Corbett, 2005).

UPDATE: I just ran into the website of an English campaign addressing the Belarus issue:

The United 4 Belarus campaign is aiming to raise awareness of the situation in Belarus in the United Kingdom and the European Union in the run-up to and the aftermath of the March 19th Presidential elections. A number of specific national campaign activities are planned and a number of ideas for local activities are documented on the website.

Rank the Rankings

University Rankings are popular. And some of them are quite influential, even though their methodologies leave a lot to be desired. A good example of this influence is for instance the fact that in Malaysia, Ministers and even the Prime Minister have reacted to the Times Higher Education Supplement ranking of universities (very well reported on in this blog, here and here and here, and many more posts)

The Education Policy Institute now has a report on these league tables (a sort of ranking of rankings). Surprisingly (or not?), they point to the German model as a best practice. It's surprising because it's not a ranking in the way we know it, like the Newsweek ranking, the THES ranking or the Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking.

This ranking is developed by the Centre for Higher Education Development (CHE) and its English version is offered through the DAAD website. In this ranking, you personally give your ranking criteria and the priority in these criteria. The site then gives you the best university for your subject (you can also search by university or by city).

The CHE methodology has also attracted the attention from other European countries such as Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands (here they already started with a weak copycat of the CHE ranking). In the long term it might develop into a European wide ranking, where students are able to rank universities throughout Europe, based on their own preferences.

For those that still want to see a ranking. Here is my ranking of political science departments in Germany:

1. Humboldt-Universitaet Berlin
2. Universitaet Mannheim
3. Universitaet Tuebingen
4. Universitaet Bremen
5. Universitaet Konstanz

Podcast University

The University of Washington has a trendy way to teach you about one of the world's oldest institutions: the university. They podcast a serie of lectures ranging from 'Human Sexuality' to 'Introduction to Macroeconomics'. One of the lectures that you can subscribe to is 'The idea of the University'. There are also powerpoint slides avaiable here.

Slowly, more lectures are being offered through podcasts. Purdue University and the University of Washington, to my knowledge, have the widest range of lectures available. 'Productive strategies' presented a list with links to lecture podcasts a few months ago.

Obviously, this also sparked a debate about the value of this 'new' technology. Should professors podcast their lectures on-line? Are iPods educational? Will students decide not to attend classes? On the other hand, wouldn't it be a good way of reviewing the lectures before an exam? And couldn't it be very useful for international students that struggle with the language?

Europeanisation by stealth

The Chronicle reports on another clear illustration of how the European Union, and especially the European Court of Justice (ECJ), affects national higher education policies. Formally, the EU has no authority in the field of higher education. Yet, through spill-overs and ECJ litigation it profoundly impacts higher ed.

Until last year, Austria was the only country that did not have a cap on the number of students in medical schools. Everyone who finished high school and passed the 'matura' was able to attend medical school. Most EU countries had such caps in order to avoid an over-supply of doctors and specialists and to prevent spending costly resources on the training of doctors.

In order to avoid an influx of foreign students to study medicine in Austria, the ministry established special requirements for foreign EU students. These requirements however were illegal according to an ECJ court ruling (link to Chronicle/subscribers only). After all, this was seen as discrimination on the basis of nationality (Article 12 [ex Article 6] of the Treaty is one of the EU core principles and provides that any discrimination on the grounds of nationality is prohibited). The result was that at the day of the court ruling 700 German students had applied for a place in an Austrian medical school.

Response of Thomas Schmid, spokesman for the Ministry of education:

"All over Europe, we have limits in the field of medicine. Germany has just 8,300 medical-school places for a population 10 times the size of Austria's. So what do many German students do? They come to Austria to get a place, and what happened was that the number of Austrians' being able to study medicine was being dramatically limited."

As a response to the court ruling, Austria's education minister, Elisabeth Gehrer introduced a measure that would end unlimited access to eight courses of university study, including medicine and business administration. She said that Austria's university system simply could not afford the strain of allowing unrestricted admission of all students.

But this still did not resolve the issue of foreign students. It just means that prospective students (whether they are Austrian or foreign) can not just enter any programme of choice anymore. With nearly half of Austria's medical students coming from Germany and the prospect that the proportion would continue to rise, the government felt compelled to act. This time, the Austrian Minister seems to have found a way around the non-discrimination principle:

Austria's education minister, Elisabeth Gehrer, announced on Monday that 75 percent of the places at Austrian medical schools would be reserved for students who finished their secondary education in Austria. Twenty percent of places would be restricted to students from elsewhere in the European Union, and the remaining 5 percent would be allocated to students from countries outside the union.

The legislation had been checked by experts in European Union law. Because the new measure's provisions are not contingent on national origin, but on where a student completed high school, the government is confident it will pass easily through the legislative process and be enacted within a semester.

There is still hope for the nation state in Europe..

Globalisation: 99 Definitions & Perspectives

While I was looking for a file in my computer I stumbled upon an old document. It's a file with a list of different perspectives and definitions of globalisation that I assembled for my doctoral research some years ago. I thought it might be of useful for students and scholars that are trying to grasp the possible meanings of the term.

It is a list of 99 (give or take a few) views from different disciplines and different sectors. Most are from academics, ranging from anthropologists to economists and from philosophers to business gurus. It includes statements from people as diverse as Bill Gates, Karl Marx and Vandana Shiva and organisations ranging from Greenpeace to the World Bank.

I converted the list into a website that can be found here (pdf also available). If you think any perspectives should be added, let me know..

Micro-Managing Red Tape

Rumour has it that the Australian universities will soon start a new assault on red tape and over-regulation. They claim that government bureaucracy is wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars a year. In their vision for Australian higher education (Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future, released in 2003) the Howard government agreed that:

"..the reporting requirements of universities need to be streamlined and that the resulting savings should be re-invested in education. Significant reduction in regulatory intervention, to which the Government is committed, will require the development of agreed measures of educational outcomes that can replace the present heavy emphasis on inputs reporting and process monitoring."

In November 2003, the former Minister Dr. Brendan Nelson stated:

"I have agreed to a series of changes to the higher education reform legislation to significantly reduce the level of red tape and simplify the administration of the reform programmes"

Obviously, they have been unsuccessful in reducing red tape. Australian higher education has been radically marketised in the past decades. This should have given universities the flexibility to operate more entrepreneurial, more effective and more responsive. Marketisation often comes with a reduction in funding and this also happened in Australia. However, a reduction in funding should mean that there will be 'less strings attached'.

Marketisation in Australia has indeed led to decreased funding (per student) of Australian higher education (see for instance chapter 10 in this report, table B1.4 in this OECD Excel file, this publication of the Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee). However, somehow this has gone together with an increase in micro-management and micro-regulation instead of an increase in flexibility. In short: red tape is everywhere in Australian universities, despite (or due to?) increased marketisation.

Vice Chancellors agree. Australian National University vice-chancellor Ian Chubb said red tape and regulation had continued to grow:

"All sorts of approvals have to be gained for courses that shouldn't be required. We have to predict basically 12 months in advance the subjects students will enrol in. Given a third haven't finished school when we make those predictions, it is unnecessarily complicated."

University of Western Sydney vice-chancellor Janice Reid said compliance costs now amounted to millions of dollars every year:

"The explosion in fine-grained information demands by government and the ever more prescriptive policy environment is limiting our ability to be innovative and responsive to students. It means directing resources to huge compliance and reporting exercises and away from teaching research. It would be costing millions of dollars across the sector."

I completely agree with their observations. At the same time I would advise them to take on a more critical perspective on their internal operations. Red tape is not just caused by governmental micro-management and an abundance of accountability demands from governments but also by over-management by the university central-level offices. Of course the two are interrelated: the micro-management of the government triggers the need for more managers and administrators at the university level. But still, I think there is a lot of efficiency to be gained internally. Of course that does not mean that the new Minister of education is off the hook..

Cold, costly but cutting edge education

The recruitment of international students has become a lucrative business in countries like the US, the UK and Australia. In the UK they are estimated to bring in about 4 billion pounds a year to British universities and some 10 billion to the economy as a whole. With the aging of the population, the UK is worried about the (financial) future of its universities. Non EU international students can be charged higher fees and are therefore seen as a potential solution to these financial problems.

There are now over 300,000 foreign students demand from international students stagnated in 2005, rising just 0.3% compared to the year before. This can be partly attributed to increased global competition but also to the growth of the higher education systems in China and India. Due to these factors the projected amount of international students (850,000 in 2020) has become a difficult target.

To remain competitive in the market, the UK needs to have a competitive advantage over other competitors. In a BBC article, Dr Tim Westlake, director of international development at Manchester University seems to agree:

"At present, the international student market is dominated by English-speaking countries. The global dominance of the English language has given the UK, the USA, and Australia a real competitive edge."

But then the question becomes: how do these countries compete with each other? According to Dr Westlake, the unique selling points will have to be the quality of UK degrees and the quality of the student experience. And the unique selling points of the US and Australia? Apparently not quality but:

"...the sunshine and beaches of Australia and the low cost of living of the USA"

Higher Education, the GATS and the Convention on the High Seas

In recent years there has been a lot of debate on how higher education world-wide will be affected by the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS; a treaty within the WTO framework). The GATS makes a distinction between four different modes of supply of services:

1. Cross-border supply is defined to cover services flows from the territory of one Member into the territory of another Member (e.g. distance education programmes offered abroad);


2. Consumption abroad refers to situations where a service consumer (e.g. students go to another country to complete a programme);


3. Commercial presence implies that a service supplier of one Member establishes a territorial presence, including through ownership or lease of premises, in another Member's territory to provide a service (e.g. a university established a branch campus abroad);


4. Presence of natural persons consists of persons of one Member entering the territory of another Member to supply a service (e.g. academics teaching a course in another country).

It is not entirely clear how the GATS will restrict governments in making policies for their national higher education systems and in giving preferential treatment for their citizens. In the liberalization of services in the EU common market, this has also led to discussions. Among other things, this has led to a uniform tuition rate for students from EU countries The fees may be different in different countries, but within countries they have to be the same for domestic students and other EU students).

The GATS raises a lot of questions. To what extent is national funding of higher education a government subsidy, and should suppliers from other countries (i.c. foreign universities) then receive the same support (a commitment to national treatment implies that the Member concerned does not operate discriminatory measures benefiting domestic services or service suppliers). Under Article II of the GATS, Members are held to extend immediately and unconditionally to services or services suppliers of all other Members treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like services and services suppliers of any other country (the so-called MFN or Most Favored Nation principle).

But have universities found a way around the GATS? Inside Higher-Ed (Sailing Around the Flat World) has a report on a new mode of supply: the Scholar Ship, a collaboration between Royal Caribbean Cruises and six foreign universities.

The program is a corporate subsidiary of Royal Caribbean, and the academic programs will be led by Macquarie University in Australia. The maiden voyage of the ship — which will have libraries and lecture halls where the casinos and ballrooms were — will be in January 2007.
Students, who will be taught primarily in English, will pay $19,500 for the classes and cruise, and will have eight port stops as they circumnavigate the globe, beginning and ending in Athens.

I guess most of the time will be spent in the (non-territorial) high seas. As far as I can see (although I am all but an expert on legal issues) this mode of supply of educational services does not fall under any of the 4 categories. Truly de-nationalised, global education        

Science Dollars, Shekels, Rand and Reals

A newsfeed from the Science and Development Network brought me to this article on science spending. The article is based on the UNESCO Science Report 2005. We have heard a lot of talk about how Asia is catching up with Europe in terms of spending on R&D and Science. In the case of science spending, Asia has already overtaken Europe, mainly due to China's increase in spending on science.

It says that from 1997 to 2002, Asian funding from public and private sources rose by four per cent, enabling Asia to account for 32 per cent of global research spending. In those five years, China's share of global spending more than doubled, from four to nine per cent. Meanwhile, the Latin America and the Caribbean region's share of the global total fell from 3.1 per cent to 2.6 per cent. Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa contributed just 0.1 per cent of the global total

But what probably surprised me more were the figures on the spending per researcher. This number is very low for the Asian states of the former Soviet Union: US$ 8,900. The average spending per researcher in OECD countries is US$ 191,900, while for the United States this is US$ 230,000 and for the EU the number is US$177,000. Most surprising are the countries that spend most per researcher:

1. Israel US$ 661,000
2. South Africa US$ 357,600
3. Brazil US$ 238,000

I can image that the high numbers in Israel (and in the US) are somehow related to military spending (this table shows that Israel and the US also rank 1st and 2nd in gross expenditure on R&D per inhabitant: 922 resp. 1005 US$ per inhabitant). But why do Brazil and especially South Africa spent so much money per researcher?

Let's stick together

Yesterday, Inside Higher Ed and the education section of the Guardian wrote about the establishment of yet another international consortium of universities: The International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU). Obviously, I have a special interest in these things since I have written my PhD dissertation about this phenomenon. Here I also concluded that many of such consortia do not fully exploit the opportunities that emerge in these cooperative ventures. And basically this has to do with the resistance of universities to give up any authority to these consortia.

The members of IARU are the Australian National University, ETH Zurich, National University of Singapore, Peking University, University of California at Berkeley, University of Copenhagen, the University of Tokyo, Yale University, Oxford and Cambridge. The inaugural presidents' meeting in Singapore elected Professor Ian Chubb, vice-chancellor of the Australian National University as chairman for 2006-07.

Cambridge and Oxford said that topics that have been discussed for joint research by alliance members include the global movement of people, aging and health, food and water, energy and environment, and security. Ian Chubb said: "In the longer term, we plan to seek corporate/foundation/government support for research projects; perhaps convene a forum to share knowledge about the commercialisation of research and the legal and academic framework in each country; work jointly on benchmarking; and develop shared positions on key public policy issues."

Like the establishment of similar alliances, this event has been accompanied by a lot media attention and a lot of promises. Many of similar alliances however went into oblivion or experienced a silent death. Let’s see where IARU ends up in a year or so…

Google.edu

In yesterdays Higher Education section of the Australian, Dennis Tourish writes a crushing article on the state of Australian higher education policy. And he makes some good points. Tourish – now a professor at Aberdeen Business School in Schotland – writes:

I came to Australia in 1999 to work at a sandstone university. But within three months of my arrival I started applying for jobs back in Britain and left within a year. My recent visits tell me that many of the problems that existed then have intensified. At the bottom, these can be summed up in one word: managerialism. This is the wholly unreasonable conviction that those at the top always know better than those they manage, who must bow in all matters to the wisdom of their betters.

On the basis of other studies on organisations he suggests the following lessons for Australian policy makers and managers in the field of higher education: improve employment security, decentralise decision-making, and improve pay and encourage trade union organisation. He illustrates these suggestions mainly by referring to studies on manufacturing companies. Although I agree with many of his arguments, I am not sure whether universities can easily be compared to manufacturing companies. Maybe more knowledge intensive organisations would be a better unit of comparison.

In a special issue of Newsweek on ‘the Knowledge Revolution’, Google presents 10 golden rules on how to get the most out of knowledge workers. They build on the late Peter Drucker’s argument: “smart businesses will strip away everything that gets in their knowledge workers' way. Those that succeed will attract the best performers, securing the single biggest factor for competitive advantage in the next 25 years.”

Here are five of Google’s Golden Rules that might present a lesson for Higher ed:

• Hire by committee. Virtually every person who interviews at Google talks to at least half-a-dozen interviewers, drawn from both management and potential colleagues.

I think in Academia, this is still very much in the hands of academics and has not shifted to managers. Not yet…

• Cater to their every need. As Drucker says, the goal is to "strip away everything that gets in their way." Let's face it: programmers want to program, they don't want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both.

Here’s a lot to learn for university managers: academics want to teach and do research, not fill out forms!

• Make coordination easy. In addition to physical proximity, each Googler e-mails a snippet once a week to his work group describing what he has done in the last week. This gives everyone an easy way to track what everyone else is up to, making it much easier to monitor progress and synchronize work flow.

Hard for me to say since I am basically working on ‘my own thing’, but I think that many departments have too much become a collection of a lot of small ‘shops’ run by individual academics.

• Strive to reach consensus. Modern corporate mythology has the unique decision maker as hero. We adhere to the view that the "many are smarter than the few," and solicit a broad base of views before reaching any decision.

Tourish would clearly agree with this. In his view however, it are the managers who decide, not the academics. Of course most universities have some consultation procedures in place. The question is however what their impact is…

• Encourage creativity. Google engineers can spend up to 20 percent of their time on a project of their choice. There is, of course, an approval process and some oversight, but basically we want to allow creative people to be creative.

Probably no academic in the world would disagree with a policy like this.

Can university leaders and managers learn from Google?

Review and preview of 2006

What better way to start of the New Year than by looking back on that same year. The International Herald Tribune publishes a column by  H.D.S. Greenway of the Boston Globe in which he looks back on 2006. Looks like it’s going to be an interesting year.

Chalabi will run for president in Iran. Rumsfeld will resign because of alleged relations with Saddam Hussein. The term ‘torture’ will be redefined by Cheney. The US will create its own Foreign Legion. And Blair will start working part-time as the new US Secretary of Defense. Let’s review these predictions later this year…

My plans will be more down to earth. Number one priority will be gathering the empirical data for my post-doc research project. First I will need to revise the planning slightly because of some practical problems I encountered at the end of 2005 regarding my projected case studies. Probably the case of Singapore will be excluded from my research. Instead I will try to compare Southeast Asian developments (related to higher education policies and the idea of the knowledge society) to developments in OECD countries by including Australia and the Netherlands in my project. Hence some trips need to be planned to go to Malaysia, Indonesia and the Netherlands this year.

Other plans include participation in workshop 27 of the Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research in Nicosia (Cyprus) and in session 2 of the Research Committee on Sociology of Science and Technology at the annual International Sociological Association conference in Durban (South Africa).

And of course I will try to be more frequent in my postings while I am abroad. Due to my stay in the Netherlands in October, in Portugal in November last year and my current stay in the US, I have not been posting as regularly as I wanted. When I am back in Australia next week, I’ll try to get back to a ‘normal’ schedule.

Knowledge talks

Another example of the way that certain ‘talk’ sometimes starts leading a life of its own. The Netherlands like to benchmark themselves against other nations (what nation doesn’t?). Especially in the field of science and innovation policies, the Dutch have had a close watch on Finland for a long time.

But now the Dutch Scienceguide publishes an interview with the Dutch Prime Minister on the Dutch innovation policy. In the interview, another country enters the stage as an example for the Dutch knowledge society: Canada. Rather strange that at the same day ‘Digitalhomecanada’ publishes an article with the title ”9 Million Canadians can't meet demands of knowledge society”….

Dutch images

In between coming back from a visit to the ANZCIES conference in Coffs Harbour (and a bit of scuba diving; I’ll post some pictures on my website soon) and getting ready for leaving to the US, I found a small article on the Dutch Scienceguide.

The Free University of Amsterdam recently held a survey on the image of various academic disciplines. They surveyed young people between 11 and 24. The results? 21% of them thought of Astrology as a very scientific discipline, while only 12% and 9% thought of Political Science resp. Public Policy/Public Admin as a scientific discipline. Astronomy and Chemistry score the highest with 42 and 65%. History was seen as scientific by only 17%. The field of Anthropology wasn’t well known by the youngsters: 16% did not have any opinion on this discipline.

So, what’s wrong with the image of Political Science? Or is it the young people?

Disunity in binarity

In the Netherlands, the discussion about the sustainability of a binary system has again come up. The best examples of countries that have abolished their binary systems are probably the UK and Australia. Maybe the Dutch politicians should take a look at the developments in Australia.

Minister Nelson’s  recent push for graduate school universities and the push for students to complete a general degree before entering elite graduate schools at the nation's sandstone universities seems to be a return to a binary system. Maybe not of polytechnics and universities in this case, but a binary system of ‘teaching only’ and ‘research intensive’ universities. What is the difference?

One ERC...or 25?

Now that I have returned from my visit last month to CHEPS in the Netherlands and the University of Aveiro in Portugal, I’ll try to post more regularly again. That said…let’s start with a short item in last weeks Economist:

“Historically, the European Union has not bothered with funding much basic scientific research. Such activities have mainly remained the preserve of national governments, not least because giving scientists free rein can lead to discoveries that not only make money but ultimately enhance military might. That attitude is now changing. The European Commission proposes to establish a European Research Council (ERC) that would spend a maximum of euro12 billion ($14 billion) over seven years on “blue skies” research. While the plans are being generally welcomed by Europe's member states, their details are problematic.”

In many respects, I’m a supporter of the creation of a European Research Council. Expanding the opportunities for researchers to apply for research funding will create a healthy form of competition, especially for those in the smaller countries of the EU. Whether I am a believer of this European version of the NSF (the US National Science Foundation)? …I’m not so sure. Europe is simply not a federation of states like the US. It is a grouping of sovereign nation states with some common goals and a lot of different peculiarities. And this is exactly what should not be taken into account when deciding upon the way in which the ERC will be legally organised. Basically the choice is between an independent organisation that allocates funding on the basis of merit and an organisation that allocates funding on the basis of national quota. It should be like the former option, but it will probably be more like the latter… This time I agree with the Economist:

“If both are genuine in their support for the ERC and Europe's aim of becoming more competitive, then they must find a way of keeping the ERC free from political interference. Europe would benefit from a competition for its best researchers which rewards scientific excellence. A quasi-competition that recognises how many votes each member state is allotted would be pointless.”

Marx, marketing and the bottom line

Yes, some things might be wrong with some universities in some Western European higher education systems. In its 8th September 2005 special edition "The Brains Business", the Economist devoted many pages to heavily critique 'Europe's' higher education system (as if there is no diversity within Europe). In many cases their critique was justified, in many cases it was imbalanced.

In their most recent edition the (Western) Europe bashing continues. In the article "from Marx to marketing" they report on the rise of (private) higher education in Eastern Europe:

"But in education, as in other industries, the new members of the European Union have the advantage of a past that leaves nowhere to go but up. Compared with their state-run counterparts in Western Europe, where academics, bureaucrats and students unite against change, universities in countries once yoked to Moscow are adapting fast to a new global market."

Yes, many universities in Eastern Europe are showing remarkable progress. Most however are profoundly state-controlled as well. Many Eastern European governments have more control over their universities than for instance in the UK, Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The Economist has the habit of labelling Europe with one specific country that suits their story. Sometimes with Germany and Italy if they want to emphasise 'Western Europe's' overcrowded class-rooms; sometimes with the UK, if they want to emphasise the high costs in Western Europe:

"a European-level undergraduate degree with combined annual tuition and living costs of some 5,000 Euros ($6,035). At a cheap western European outfit, such as Britain's Luton University, the cost would be three times more."

And in several Western European countries fees are much lower than in the UK and in many places they are even non-existent.

"Places with liberal regimes have seen the fastest rowth. In Poland, which deregulated universities in the 1990s, the number of tudents has risen from 500,000 to over 2m. Slovakia, with a more rigid system, has seen numbers double."

The mushrooming of private institutions has not just led to quality institutions but also to rogue providers. The most highly regarded universities in most of the Central and Eastern European countries (for instant in the Czech Republic and in the Baltics) are public universities and have a lot of state interference.

"The region's nimbler, more market-oriented colleges have been helped by the new practice of dividing education into chunks (bachelor's and master's degrees, for a start), with work sandwiched in between. An old-style five-year degree at a single campus would be costly, even at central European rates. Doing a short master's in Prague, say, is more manageable."

This of course is simply part of the Bologna process which is taking place all over Europe and beyond.

Again, many promising developments are taking place in Central and Eastern European countries, but a bit more balanced and informed reporting on higher education issues in the Economist would be appreciated!

THES leak

The official top 200 of the world's universities (according to the Times Higher Education Supplement) will be published tomorrow. But a privileged copy is already available at this blog. For an analysis of the new list, have a look at this weblog.

My observations? My current university (University of Sydney) ranked 38th, slightly up from last years position of 40th. Australia ranked third in terms of the amount of universities in the top 200 with 17 universities. Not surprisingly, the US and the UK ranked 1st and 2nd.

My 'other' home country the Netherlands ranked 4th with 10 universities in the top 200 but does not have any universities in the top 50. This illustrates the way Dutch higher education is often typified: a plateau with a few peaks. The plateau is there, the peaks are getting higher...

What's the right atmosphere?

The International Herald Tribune yesterday reported about China’s investments in their universities.

China is focusing on science and technology, areas that reflect the country's development needs, but also reflect the preferences of an authoritarian system that restricts free speech. The liberal arts often involve critical thinking about politics, economics and history. The government has placed relatively little emphasis on achieving world-class status in these subjects. Yet, many Chinese say - most often indirectly - that the limits on academic debate could hamper efforts to create world-class universities

"Right now, I don't think any university in China has an atmosphere comparable to the older Western universities - Harvard or Oxford - in terms of freedom of expression," said Lin Jianhua, the executive vice president of Peking University. "We are trying to give the students a better environment, but in order to do these things we need time. Not 10 years, but maybe one or two generations."

The question is: can China wait for two generations? Artists and academics are already raising their voices.

But the biggest weakness, many Chinese academics indicated, is the lack of academic freedom. Yang, the former president of Fudan, warned that if the right "atmosphere" was not cultivated, great thinkers from overseas might come to China for a year or two only to leave, frustrated. Gong Ke, a vice president of Tsinghua University, said universities had "the duty to guarantee academic freedom. We have professors who teach here, foreigners, who teach very differently from the Chinese government's point of view. Some of them really criticize the economic policy of China."

Li Ao, a well-known Taiwanese writer, called for greater academic freedom and independence from the government in a September speech at Peking University. The next day, after reportedly coming under heavy official pressure, he delivered a far tamer version of the speech at Tsinghua University, where media coverage was tightly controlled. The Chinese government also censors university online bulletin boards and discussion groups, and recently prevented students at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou from conversing freely with visiting elected officials from Hong Kong.

Students here are not encouraged to challenge authority or received wisdom. For some, this helps explain why China has never won a Nobel Prize in any category. What is needed most now, some of China's best scholars say, are bold, original thinkers.

How long can a highly educated population be censored and restricted by government regulation? And can you have sustainable world-class universities without academic freedom?    

More branches

Unlike the University of Warwick, the University of New South Wales will continue to develop its branch campus in Singapore. The University of Warwick decided not to establish a branch campus because of financial reasons and because of Singapore’s regulation that foreign institutions are not allowed to criticise local politics. UNSW and Warwick were the only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government to set up fully fledged independent teaching and research institutions offering undergraduate degrees. UNSW expects to open the doors of its UNSW Asia Campus, to up to 15,000 students from early 2007. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports, it is also a major financial investment:

“UNSW has already secured a State Government-endorsed bank loan of $113 million for the Singapore campus. But it will also receive about $80 million in capital works funding from the Singapore Government, a figure the university's deputy vice-chancellor (international and development), John Ingleson, has refused to confirm or deny, on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence.”

I have been posting about this topic before. It is not that I am against the establishments of foreign branch campuses and neither are these posts meant to criticise Singapore’s desire to attract foreign universities. However I do think there needs to be some more transparency (especially in the case of public universities) and more balance between financial interests and public or academic interests. The UNSW is a good and well respected university, but I would expect some better arguments for their decisions. Here are a few of them:

• Professor Ingleson said he had been assured by the Government there that students and academics would enjoy complete academic freedom on campus. He dismissed concerns raised by the Warwick pull-out, arguing that UNSW had "a more nuanced view of how Singapore and its society worked".


• "There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country … in that sense, our staff and our students will be subject … off-campus to the laws of Singapore like anyone else".


• Professor Ingleson believed Warwick's decision was based on financial risk rather than concern about academic freedom. He said UNSW was not exposed to the same risk as Warwick because the Australian university had closer ties with the region and a more firmly established brand name.

……..

Snapped branches

Warwick’s decision not to set up a branch campus has become final. Today the Warwick website announced that on the 18th of October the council voted against the Singapore plans. Their press release however remains vary vague about the exact reasons compared to the article in the Financial Times and Warwick’s student paper Boar (see my previous post). The university will however keep on cooperating with Singapore:

The Council further resolved that the University should continue discussions within the academic community and with the EDB with a view to bringing forward an alternative plan for academic development in Singapore which could command the support of the Senate and the Council.

I think continuing the cooperation is a good decision. Hopefully the real reasons for the no-vote will remain an item in these cooperative ventures.

Newsflashes

In the coming four weeks the posting will probably be a bit slower. I am currently visiting the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies in the Netherlands (a 3-week visit sponsored by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia). After this I’ll be co-teaching a course in an Erasmus Mundus programme at the University of Aveiro in Portugal for one week (a course jointly offered by the University of Oslo, the University of Aveiro and the University of Tampere (Finland) and coordinated by HEDDA).

In these weeks I’ll try to keep up with the news in academia and report my views on it. For now, here are two news items of the past days that struck me.

First there are the results of a study commissioned by the British Council. Both the Chronicle and The Australian report on the study that finds that Australia remains a favourite destination of Asian foreign students. The study follows up on a previous survey, conducted in 2000. Then they found that fewer than half of international students in Australia regarded the country as a destination preferred over Britain or the United States. In 2005, however, 81 percent reported that Australia was their first choice among the three recruiting rivals. Only 11 per cent of Asian students in Australia would have preferred to be in the US (in 2000 the figure was 33 per cent) and only 8 per cent in Britain (in 2000, 15 per cent). The results were presented at the Australian International Education Conference. At the same conference, studies were presented about the effect of the growth of foreign students on the quality of education in Australia. Those effects remain a topic of fierce debate.

A second news item was the University of Warwick’s vote on its Singapore plans. The Financial Times reports that senior lecturers at Warwick University have voted against setting up a branch campus in Singapore because of worries about limits on academic freedom in the country. The Economic Development Board of Singapore had invited the University of Warwick and the University of New South Wales (Australia) to set up a branch campus in the country. According to the FT:

The vote is a blow to the city-state's ambitions to become a regional hub for higher education. It comes in the week that the outgoing US ambassador to Singapore warned in a farewell speech that Singapore's limits on expression might cause the government to "pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens". Singapore requires international educational institutions operating in the city-state to agree not to conduct activities seen as interference in domestic affairs.

In an interview with the Boar (the student newspaper of the university), Warwick’s Vice-Chancellor argues that: "This is the best opportunity we will ever receive. If we don't go, how will we increase our international credibility?" Aside from wether the decision is the right one or not, it is comforting to see that even this successful university, which is commonly seen as a model for entrepreneurialism and innovation, sticks to its academic principles.
          

Whartonization

The Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania seems to have become very popular in Southeast Asia. The Singapore Management University that was established in 2000 was modeled after the Wharton School.

"Its educational and administrative practices are modeled after American institutions, in particular the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, which has played a central role in SMU's development."

Today, the New Straits Times reports that Malaysia is going to be home to a top-class business management institution, modeled on.. the Wharton School of Business. Special Envoy to the Higher Education Ministry Datuk Seri Effendi Norwawi said the business management institution will involve a tie-up with Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, one of eight Ivy League institutions in the United States. One of the Special Envoy's chief tasks is to persuade top-notch universities to either set-up branch campuses here or work with other institutions here. Tony, a critical observer of Malaysian higher education, also reports on the issue.

I am currently working on a paper on international isomorphism and the global diffusion of higher education and research policies. I guess this makes a good example.

Update: I just noticed that the New Straits Time also has an interview with Effendi in today's issue: 'Roll out the red carpet for foreign students'

Knowledge production shifts

I know. A lot can be said against the use of university rankings and even more against their methodologies. That said….the Times Higher education Supplement published their annual ranking of technology universities and institutions last Friday. The ranking is based on peer review assessment and on the number of citations per paper. They created 3 lists: one for technology universities, one for non-university institutions in science and one for non-university institutions in technology. Below are some of the results. In my view there are two important observations:

- The stable high positions of Asian universities. There are 4 Asian universities in the top 10 and 7 in the top 20. Continental Europe on the other hand, only has 2 universities in the top 20 (ETH Zurich and TU Delft). The non-university institutions on the other hand are located mainly in the US and some in the UK, Australia and Europe. But none in Asia.
- Another interesting observation is that the number of citations per paper is considerably higher in non-university institutions, especially for the institutions involved in science. Furthermore, most of the universities in the top 10 are public while many of the non-universities are private organisations. A shift in knowledge production from the public to the private domain?         

Click here to see the rankings

          

Academic Eurosclerosis

The Chronicle reports on the Eurosclerosis in academic entrepreneurialism. It's kind of an old message: although many national and university policies have changed to promote technology transfer and commercialisation of scientific research, the traditional research universities on the continent seem not able to make the 'cultural' switch. Professors are more interested in their academic publication records than in their profits. In other words: bad news for the European knowledge economies and the Lisbon targets.

On the other hand, it is rather remarkable that most of the European countries have implemented regulations similar to the Bayh-Dole Act in the US, but the countries that have not, like Finland and Sweden are considered the most innovative countries in Europe. The Chronicle does give an explanation for the case of Sweden, but what about this role model of the European innovative welfare state called Finland?

What is it with education research...

Professor Terry Moe from the Political Science Department of Stanford University recently spoke some provocative words at the University of Sydney. The Higher Education section of The Australian reports about her talk at the Schooling for the 21st Century conference in Sydney. Here are some of her provocative statements:

"If you were in political science and you proposed something like vouchers [enabling families to choose schools], there'd be a big theoretical discussion. In education, they're thinking, what is the impact on the system which we all really care about and are invested in? As a result, a lot of education research is, I think, of poor quality. A lot of it is mixed with ideology."

"My hope is that education will really develop as a social science and that we can have really honest exchanges. I've been in [Stanford's political science] department 24 years - I'm the chairman of the department - and basically I don't know anybody's ideology in the department. We do our work and our work doesn't really have anything to do with our own personal ideology”.

"Well, in the education school that's not true ... they know where people stand and they know it when they hire people, and that's why they don't hire people like me. If you do support markets, for what I consider to be truly legitimate theoretical and research-based reasons, [then] all I am is just a conservative ... I'm a right-wing nut who's dangerous”.

"This is not just the Stanford education school, this is a general problem, I think."

Does she have a point? I must admit that I have heard the argument before from US political scientists and public policy scholars. And also some Australians criticise educational research. Although I work in a Faculty of Education, I don’t consider myself an education researcher. I got my Ph.D. in a department of public administration and policy studies (the Dutch system for some strange reason does not award doctorates in a particular discipline). I have been in Sydney’s Faculty of Education only for a short time now and cannot really judge their educational research since I am not familiar with it. The research that I am familiar with in the faculty is more of a sociological or political science nature. This research is not mixed with ideology and it is definitely not of poor quality. I only know the work of a few faculty members of Stanford’s School of Education like Francisco Ramirez, Martin Carnoy and Patricia Gumport (which again should be considered sociologists and economists more than educational researchers) and I wouldn’t consider their work of poor quality.

But what is it then with educational research? Is it too much mixed with ideology and is it of poor quality? Or shouldn’t it be judged by ‘social science standards’? Or isn’t there anything wrong with mixing with ideology? I do agree here with Moe that ideology stands in the way of objective research. In my previous position I didn’t know what my colleagues’ ideologies were (well, of some of them I did, but that was not based on their research but just because I knew them personally). Moe also says that she doesn’t know anybody’s ideology in her department. Well, I’m pretty sure I know what the ideology is of one of their professors: Prof. Condoleezza Rice….

Academic blogospherication

Interesting article about academic blogging  (written by Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber) in the Chronicle. The academic ‘blogosphere’ as a substitution for the Republic of Letters? I hope it’s just a supplement, not a substitute. Nevertheless: definitely worth a read!

Imagining Academic Job Markets

Daniel Nexon gives some useful tips for those of you on the academic job market. Although he knows you’re gonna ignore his advice, it is worth a read. I liked this one:

Do not start to build an imaginary life for yourself at Big Research University, Medium-Size State U, Small Liberal Arts College, Tiny Remedial Institute, or whatever. This advice applies even once you have gotten an interview. I recommend not looking at real estate websites, finding out every last detail about the area the institution is located, or doing anything of this sort.

Might be useless but I remember I liked checking the climate in Wisconsin, inspecting the diving in Florida and finding out the amazing housing prices in London….           

Another Blog

Why another blog? Paradoxically I got the idea after reading Ivan Tribble's column in the Chronicle of Higher Education and his recent follow up as a reaction to the critique of the whole 'blogger community'. According to Tribble - whoever that may be - a blog easily becomes a therapeutic outlet:

"Worst of all, for professional academics, it's a publishing medium with no vetting process, no review board, and no editor. The author is the sole judge of what constitutes publishable material, and the medium allows for instantaneous distribution."

Welcome to the 21st century! I guess that's what the Internet is all about, and even academia needs to live with it. Don't worry, I'll continue to let peers judge my work through the official channels of journals and conferences. I do however have enough trust in professional academics - including myself - to use new media in a responsible manner.

But still, ..why start blogging? Just because it's a good way to keep track of the developments in the fields that I research: higher education and research policies, science & innovation policies, and the globalisation and transnationalisation of (public) policies. Blogging will hopefully give me the opportunity to continuously link my more theoretical and conceptual work to current affairs.

That said, what is the blog about? It is a Blog on Globalisation, Universities + (Social) Science. These are three keywords that best express my research interests. But every now and then I will make a jaunt to other interests like Dutch, Australian, Southeast Asian and European politics, books, music or movies, and other fun things in life like diving and travelling.

Update: At 07-07-07 the Blog changed slightly due to a move to Wordpress software. It continued as Beerkens' Blog, blogging about Higher Education, Science and Innovation, from a global perspective.

Go and have a look!