'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.

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?

Legrain on immigrants

Tonight I attended a lecture (in the Sydney Ideas Series) from Philippe Legrain on his latest book: Immigrants: your country needs them. It was also the occasion of his Sydney book launch but luckily - in this open world - I ordered the book a month ago from the UK (and thereby avoided the high Australian book prices).

Legrain's lecture will be available on the University of Sydney podcasts site, but here's a short impression of both book and lecture. In short, Legrain's message is: Let them in! Because it's better for 'Us' and it's better for 'Them' and for the countries where 'They' come from. Being trained as an economist at LSE in London, it's not surprising that this message is very much based on economic rationales.

Many countries already have accepted the belief that allowing highly skilled migrants to enter the country is a necessity in order to survive in the current global knowledge economy. Legrain first of all argues that rigid and bureacratic assessment systems - like used in Australia - don't make any sense since governments simply don't know what the labour market needs will be in the future. Furthermore, innovation can not be attributed to specific types of people, but requires diversity and creativity.

What is more provacative is Legrain's compelling case for immigration of low skilled workers. Because 'we' not just need managers, but also cleaners and taxi drivers and since 'We' don't want to do these jobs anymore, and 'They' do, we should let 'Them' in. And of course there are plenty of humanitarian reasons to do so as well.

Obviously, the immigrants themselves will benefit if western countries open their borders to legal immigration. But so do the countries where they come from, both through the skills that the immigrants return if they go back and through the remittances they send home. These remittances make up between 200 and 600 billion US$ and end up right in the pockets of the people that need it most. Compare this with the 80 billion US$ in development assistance, which might end up in the wrong pockets (or Swiss bank accounts).

While reading the book I frequently agreed with Legrain's economic arguments, but I kept asking myself: what about the friction between the 'Us' and the 'Them' after 'They' immigrate, so apparent especially after 9/11. In the last few chapters Legrain does address the issue, especially for the cases of the Latinos in the US and the Muslims in Europe (he especially addresses the problems in France, Germany and the Netherlands).

I often had the feeling that I was not the one that needed convincing; the people in inner city London, Amsterdam, New York or Sydney are not the ones that needed convincing. And I am afraid that the ones he has to convince are not very receptive to these arguments. I think I agree with Roy Williams' conclusion in The Australian:

"These are lofty ideals, yet most people in the West remain old-fashioned nationalists. They love their country viscerally and as it is, or as it was when they were younger. Rightly or wrongly, they view immigration with caution, even regret."

I hope that Legrain's book will at least make people think twice about all the myths (and political rhetoric?) surrounding the issue of immigration. The book is definitely worth a read!

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]

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...

All in 1 week

In the past week, three remarkable men have passed away. The best writer of all times, one of the most innovative artists of all times and one of the most influential economists of all times.

Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1925-2006) passed away last Sunday (30 April).

For me, his numerous books, short stories and essays are the most remarkable works I have ever read. Both his use of language and his choice of topics make that his books and stories portray a lively picture of Indonesian societies and cultures. Toer brought history to live, from the early Majapahit kingdom to the first stages of colonialism, from the first movements towards independence to the repression of the Suharto regime. I wrote a short post on is work before. Here is my top 5 of his work:

1. Gadis Pantai (The Girl from the Coast, 1962)
2. Buru Quartet: Bumi Manusia (Earth of Mankind, 1980); Anak Semua Bangsa (Child of all Nations, 1980); Jejak Langkah (Footsteps, 1985) and Rumah Kaca (The Glass House, 1988)
3. Korupsi (1954)
4. Keluarga Gerilya (The Guerrilla Family, 1950)
5. Arus Balik (1995)

----

Karel Appel (1921-2006) passed away last Wednesday in Zurich.


Appel was probably the best known contemporary Dutch painter. He was one of the founders of the COBRA group, a group of painters from Copenhagen, Brussels and Amsterdam, allied with abstract expressionism.






----

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) passed away on Saturday 29 April.

From the Economist:

"At six foot eight, he was a giant. Intellectually he was equally towering, a man who spent more than seven decades either on the stage of American public policy - as a bureaucrat in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, a confidante of John Kennedy and adviser to countless other Democrats - or loudly lambasting Washington from offstage left, as a Harvard professor."

And a well known quote:

"There are two classes of forecasters: those who don't know, and those who don't know they don't know"

Spitting Image

It's been a bit over a year now since I moved to Australia. Roughly 399 years after another Dutchman, Willem Janszoon, the first European to visit Australia. In honour of this 400 year anniversary, Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende is visiting Australia this week. He wrote an article about the Dutch and the Ozzies which was published in the Australian yesterday.

Obviously it is not hard for a Dutchman to feel at home here. He claims that despite the differences, The Netherlands and Australia are well matched:

Our societies share the same values: freedom, democracy, tolerance, respect for human rights and solidarity with those in difficulties.

We both have diverse populations

Contrary to what many people think, The Netherlands, like Australia, has always been an important destination for immigrants. (I don't why he says that that is contrary to what people think. To my knowledge, the Netherlands was long known as being an immigrant country; maybe this became less so through the policies of his own cabinet, Ed)

Our countries are at similar levels of development.

And, most importantly, we have similar mentalities: enterprising, creative, upfront, unconventional and egalitarian.

The Dutch too are familiar with the tall poppy syndrome. Fortunately, neither the Dutch nor the Australians let it stand in the way of their approach to science, business, art and design.

The Dutch and Australians also share a strong focus on Asia. Afghanistan and Indonesia are two countries where Australia and The Netherlands are prominently active.

(And of course, we are both led by a politically conservative/economically liberal government, Ed)

It's a good thing that there are a lot of differences as well.

The PM visited the Formula 1 races in Melbourne this weekend. Today he met Australian PM John Howard and visted the Australian National University. Tomorrow he might join us in Sydney for an early celebration of the Dutch Queensday. The annual excuse to eat bitter balls and raw herring and drink Heineken.

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.

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?