|
HE 73
Memorandum submitted by Professor Georg Winckler, President of the European University Association (EUA), Rector of the University of Vienna
1. International competition
The outcomes in the various university rankings (THES, Shanghai, Newsweek) are not identical, but similar. There is an extremely high concentration of the very best universities in the US. Only top UK universities are able to compete globally. Yet among the top 200, just counting entries in the ranking tables, Europe is on a par with the US.
Examining the ranking of individual researchers in subject areas (e.g. mathematics, molecular biology; ISI-most highly cited researchers), the outcome is at first glance surprising: Among the top 20 most highly cited researchers, Europe seems to be nearly on a par with the US; the gap between Europe and the US widens, however, when it comes to the top 200 researchers. It seems that US top universities excel not so much by employing the few very top stars, but by engaging the bulk of the top 100 respectively top 200 researchers per field. Obviously, European universities lack critical mass at the top.
2. New entrants
Given the fact that especially Asia is increasingly recognizing the importance of research and higher education for economic development (Siannesi-Van Reenen 2003), we can expect the developing world to invest ever more in higher education and research, and hence in universities (e.g. India plans to increase the number of universities from about 300 to 1500 in 2015). This might cause European universities to lose further ground, not because of a widening gap to US universities, but through intensified competition induced by additional competitors outside North America and Europe.
Improved performance by universities due to reforms should not be expected quickly, as Australian examples demonstrate (Gamage-Miniberg 2003). Since the top 20 most highly cited researchers in various fields work in Europe, the fastest strategy to catch up consists in building critical mass around strong research of top individuals and providing there the appropriate infrastructure.
3. Diversification of missions and profiles: the US higher education system as a model
Neither the traditional systems in France and Germany nor in Britain, but the US "hybrid" system (traditional college education with competitive PhD programs on top) proved to be highly successful in the 20th century: it allowed a massive expansion of student numbers ("massification") and a research intensification within the 200-300 research universities, and thus a diversification of missions and profiles. In the words of D. Ward: "The US system is elitist at the top and democratic at the base." This diversification was driven by autonomous public/private universities with (nearly) no planning at the federal level but with mobility of students and staff, and with the establishment of federal grant or research institutions (NSF, NIH). States do a lot of planning at their level (e.g. California, Wisconsin), but due to the mobility of people and due to federal funding there is a fierce "system competition" among states.
4. Pressures will increase: the globalised knowledge society
The emergence of the knowledge society will see increasing participation rates, and much more life long learning (from "elite" to "mass" education). In this context universities need to care more about the employability of their graduates. Research intensification will require that a comprehensive research university disposes of at least 1 bio. € annually. Since the relative burden on the tax payer will be reduced, new sources of revenues have to be found, influencing university strategies and academic values. Tuition fees will go along with growing student consumerism.
Globalisation of higher education and research is driven by the increased internationalisation of the economies and by technological changes. New forms of global universities will emerge: open universities, virtual universities, meta universities (MIT OpenCourcseWare Initiative 1999, Ch. Vest: "A transcendental, accessible, empowering, dynamic, communally constructed framework of open materials and platforms..."). Projects such as the Google Books Library Project (since Dec 2004) will through the worldwide interconnectedness reach more than 1 billion people. Given these new vast opportunities of informal learning, higher education institutions will be increasingly confronted with the task of validating and branding knowledge.
The negative demographic trends in Europe will increase the pressures for European institutions to compete globally.
5. Modernisation of the university system
Strengthen the European dimension: Europe needs more common reference points in higher education and research. Europe needs the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area in order to benefit from scale effects and from her diversity. 20 years of ERASMUS (and the Bologna process as one consequence) and the strong beginning of the ERC demonstrate that public goods, organised and financed at the European level, have set new horizons; Bologna has become a "European trademark".
Measures to be taken:
a. broaden access on a more equitable basis b. reach out to more research excellence c. break down the geographical and intersectoral barriers surrounding universities in Europe, increase cooperation and competition among universities in Europe d. provide the appropriate skills and competences for the labour market e. give young, well performing early stage researchers better chances to work independently f. create genuine autonomy and accountability for universities; foster an institutional quality culture g. reduce the funding gap so that 2 % of GDP will be spent on higher education by 2015 (besides 3 % GDP spent on R&D); make funding more effective, more performance oriented
July 2007 |