1 / 63

The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities

The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities. Jamil Salmi Tbilisi 14 December 2009. natural lab experiment: U. of Malaya vs. NUS early 1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya today, stark difference: THES: NUS # 30, UoM # 180 SJTU: NUS 101- 151, UoM not in top 500.

Download Presentation

The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities JamilSalmi Tbilisi 14 December 2009

  2. natural lab experiment: U. of Malaya vs. NUS • early1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya • today, stark difference: • THES: NUS # 30, UoM # 180 • SJTU: NUS 101- 151, UoM not in top 500

  3. outline of the presentation • defining the world-class university • the path to becoming a world-class university • implications for Georgia

  4. how do you recognize a world-class university? • everyone wants one • no one knows what it is • no one knows how to get one Philip G. Altbach

  5. defining the WCU • self-declaration

  6. defining the WCU • self-declaration • reputation • rankings

  7. top 50 universities

  8. Characteristics of a World-Class University Alignment of Key Factors Concentration of Talent Students Teaching Staff Researchers Leading-Edge Research Top Graduates WCU Supportive Regulatory Framework Abundant Favorable Governance Public Budget Resources Endowment Revenues Tuition Fees Research Grants Resources Autonomy Academic Freedom Dynamic Knowledge & Technology Transfer Leadership Team Strategic Vision Culture of Excellence Source: Elaborated by Jamil Salmi

  9. concentration of talent • teachers and researchers • incoming students • undergraduate / graduate students balance

  10. weight of graduate students

  11. concentration of talent • teachers and researchers • incoming students • undergraduate / graduate students balance • international dimensions

  12. international dimensions • foreign students • Harvard (19%) • Cambridge (18%) • foreign faculty • Caltech (37%) • Harvard (30%) • Oxford (36%) • Cambridge (33%)

  13. abundant resources • dependence on government funding • US able to spend 3.3% of GDP ($54,000 per student) – 1/3 public 2/3 private • Europe (E25) only 1.3% ($13,500 per student) • endowments

  14. Comparison of US and UK Endowment Levels

  15. abundant resources • government funding • endowments • fees • research funding

  16. impact of the financial crisis • reduced government funding for teaching, research and student aid • reduced resources for institutions as demand falls (new domestic and foreign students, dropouts)

  17. impact of the financial crisis(II) • fewer resources from private sector (donations, contracts) • fall in stock market values reduces value of endowments and pension funds

  18. opportunity for institutions • impact of crisis linked to management approaches • Harvard vs. MIT • stimulus packages • attraction of talented young faculty • “Ministry recruits 2,000 foreign scholars” (May 2009)

  19. favorable governance • freedom from civil service rules (human resources, procurement, financial management) • management autonomy • flexibility and responsiveness with power to act • selection of leadership team • independent Board with outside representation

  20. U. Of Malaya vs. NUS • talent • UM: selection bias in favor of Bumiputras, less than 5% foreign students, no foreign professors • NUS: highly selective, 43% of graduates students are foreign, many foreign professors

  21. U. Of Malaya vs. NUS (II) • finance • UM: $118 million, $4,053 per student • NUS: $750 million endowment, $205 million, $6,300 per student

  22. U. Of Malaya vs. NUS (II) • governance • UM: restricted by government regulations and control, unable to hire top foreign professors • NUS: status of a private corporation, able to attract world-class foreign researchers • 52% of professors (9% from Malaysia) • 79% of researchers (11% from Malaysia)

  23. outline of the presentation • defining the world-class university • the path to becoming a world-class university

  24. the path to glory • upgrading existing institutions • mergers • creating a new institution

  25. upgrading approach • less costly • challenge of creating a culture of excellence • focus on governance

  26. mergers approach • China, Russia, France, Denmark, Ireland • potential synergies • 1+1=3 • clash of cultures

  27. creating a new institution • University of Astana, Olin College of Engineering, KAUST, MMU, PSE, U of Luxembourg, Singapore • higher costs • getting the right culture from the beginning • creating a deep tradition of research

  28. common mistakes / elements of vulnerability • focus on the physical infrastructure (U and science park) • what about the programs, curriculum and pedagogical approach? • what about scientific tradition before starting technology transfer?

  29. common mistakes / elements of vulnerability (II) • sequencing • concept to strategic plan • governance arrangements to implementation • academic plan to physical infrastructure • QA and accreditation

  30. common mistakes / elements of vulnerability (III) • heavy reliance on foreign partners, especially faculty • copying or creating a new, unified institutional culture? • top or second tier? • need to attract / prepare national teachers and researchers

  31. common mistakes / elements of vulnerability (IV) • capital costs covered, but little attention to operational costs and long-term financial sustainability • small is still beautiful • it takes time! • technology commercialization

  32. who takes the initiative? • role of the State • favorable regulatory framework • funding • designated universities or competition? • political stability • funding implications

  33. Concentration of Talent Students Teaching Staff Researchers Leading-Edge Research Top Graduates Supportive Regulatory Framework WCU Resources Favorable Governance Public Budget Resources Endowment Revenues Tuition Fees Research Grants Autonomy Academic Freedom Dynamic Technology Transfer Leadership Team Strategic Vision Culture of Excellence

  34. WCU ecosystem

  35. who takes the initiative?(II) • role of the institutions • leadership • strategic vision • culture of excellence

  36. evolution of Nokia income

More Related