Transcript Corporate PowerPoint Presentation 01 red

3rd International Symposium on University Rankings
University of Leiden, February 6-7, 2009
Moving beyond university rankings:
developing world class university systems
Tony Sheil
Senior Manager, Research Policy & Strategy
Griffith University, Australia
Named in honour of Sir Samuel
Griffith (1845-1920), first Chief
Justice of Australia
Established: 1971 (however Griffith's Queensland College of Art was
established in 1881, and the Queensland Conservatorium in 1957)
Location: Queensland, Australia
Student Population: 37,786
International Students: 8,847 (from 119 countries)
Staff population: 3,563 FTE
Campuses: 5 – Brisbane and Gold Coast
Research Centres: 38
2
Along came Shanghai Jiao Tong!
Thomson Web of Science
Research Quality
Assessment Exercise
proposed
3
“The reputation of Australia as a
quality provider of international
education depends on it being able
to provide a clear and unequivocal
statement about its intention to
maintain a world-class university
system.”
Review of Australian Higher Education:
Final Report,
December 2008, p.124
4
“Rather than debating whether Australia can support
two or three ‘world-class’ universities, the focus
should switch to establishing a hundred or more
world-class research facilities and research groups
across the whole university system.”
Review of the National Innovation System, final report ,
September 2008
5
“More of our universities should aim to be within
the top 100 internationally and I would like some
of our universities to aspire to the top 10.”
The Honourable Julie Bishop, MP
Australian Minister for Education,
Science & Training
August 30, 2007
6
Policy has changed dramatically…why?
“We want our higher education system to be world
class so wherever students are in this country,
whatever institution they’re at, they’re getting a world
class education.”
The Honourable Julia Gillard, MP
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
20 February 2008
7
Australia’s top 20 exports 2007-08 financial year ($ millions)
8
International students as a percentage of tertiary type A
enrolments (selected OECD countries), 2006
9
What are the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings telling us?
Of the world’s 10,000+ universities, research performance
is concentrated in the top 500.
There is a band of around 200 world-class researchintensive institutions.
There is a ‘super-league’ of approximately 25 world-leading
institutions. These world leaders are distinguished by large
budgets, large endowments, age, excellent staff to student
ratios, and most importantly, access to large pools of highly
developed human capital (staff and students).
10
What are the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings telling us?
There are very few ‘movers’ on the SJTU index.
Major non-US movers in the Top 100 (since 2003) are the
result of mergers and strategic alliances:
Manchester (gained 49 places),
Copenhagen (21 places)
Paris XI (24 places), Paris VI (UPMC) (21 places).
Access to top 25, for the foreseeable future, is beyond most
nations.
The very top global academic talent is highly concentrated.
11
The fastest mover on the Shanghai index?
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Thomson ISI Outputs 1997-2007
Thomson ISI Outputs
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
12
Concentration of resources – a favoured strategy
China Project 985
431 – number of university ‘consolidations’ between 1990
and 2006
US$4.1 billion – additional funding provided under the
China 985 Project
2016 – the year Peking University will reach top 100 status
10.5% – China’s share of world scientific output in 2006
(world rank 2nd) up from 5.1% in 2001 (world rank 5th)
50th – world rank (2006) for citations per paper
13
Shanghai Index Top 500 – Publications 2003 and 2008
100
90
Score for Publications
80
70
60
2003
50
2008
40
30
20
10
0
1
51
101
151
201
251
301
World Rank
351
401
451
501
14
Shanghai Top 500 – Hi-Ci Researchers 2003 and 2008
100
90
80
Score for HiCis
70
60
2003
50
2008
40
30
20
10
0
1
51
101
151
201
251
301
World Rank
351
401
451
501
15
Profile of a leading university*
16
* Sowter, 2008
Budget (2006) – leading US and Australian universities
Institution
Harvard University
Total enrolments
Budget ($US)
$US per enrolment
20,042
$3,000,000,000
$149,685
7,145
$1,109,490,000
$152,282
Yale University
11,358
$1,960,000,000
$172,565
Stanford University
14,945
$3,400,000,000
$227,500
University of Pennsylvania
23,980
$5,180,000,000
$216,013
Australian National
University
11,357
$850,000,000
$74,843
University of Melbourne
34,000
$1,240,000,000
$36,470
Princeton university
17
Small nations: Highly Cited researchers and Nobel
Laureates (1901-2007)
Nation
Highly Cited Researchers
Nobel Prize winners
Australia
111
10
Belgium
38
9
Denmark
31
14
Finland
17
3
The Netherlands
98
18
Norway
14
10
Sweden
61
28
Switzerland
113
25
Harvard University – 187 HiCis
MIT – 72 Nobel prizes (current or former members)
18
Highly Cited researchers and economic wealth
Figure 6: Hi-Ci researchers per 1% of World GDP
180
160
140
l
ae
Isr
nd
A
r la
US witze
S
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
d
lan
ea
UK
Z
w
Ne
en
ed
ds
an
da
Sw
na th erl
a lia
a
C
str
Ne
Au
ark
m
nm
y
an
De
lgiu
d
rm
Be
lan
Ge
Fin
nce
Fra
n
ar y
pa
y
ng
Ja
rwa
ly
Hu
No
Ita
ia
str
Au
re
d
po
ga
lan
ea
Ire Sin
ain o r
Sp uth K
So
19
Highly Cited researchers usually form clusters
Of Switzerland’s 112 Hi-Cis (1.8% of world Hi-Cis), 19 of these are
in Physics which is 6.2% of world Hi-Cis in the field.
Of Israel’s 47 Hi-Cis, 42% are in computer science and
mathematics.
Ireland has 8 Hi-Cis, six of these are in agricultural sciences.
Nearly half of New Zealand’s Hi-Cis are in Pharmacology.
Most nations, especially smaller ones, have a far better chance of
achieving top 10 status in a targeted area than of creating a world
leading university. (e.g. Karolinska Institute is ranked 9th for clinical
medicine on the SJTU field rankings)
20
“Small economies such as Singapore, Australia and
Switzerland can’t compete with giant economies. In the
global economy, small means you have to be focused
and nimble, find a niche and work with partners.”
Professor Shih Choon Fong (2007)
President, National University of Singapore
21
Beyond university rankings – university systems
Two university systems rankings emerged in 2008:
QS SAFE National System Strength Rankings
Lisbon Council University Systems Ranking.
These form only part of the solution to the onedimensional vice of university rankings. Improved
university classifications and benchmarking are needed
to develop a more sophisticated understanding of
available approaches to university development.
22
Then we can address the important strategic issues
What differentiated structures and organizational arrangements,
missions, and supporting strategies are required at various points
within our university systems?
What expectations should be placed on institutions at various stages of
development by way of research performance, learning experiences
and outcomes, community engagement activity, commercialisation and
internationalisation?
What investment is required to produce ‘step change’ and lift
universities from all tiers to the next stage of development?
What are the optimal levels and mixes of expenditure (government and
private), regulation and educational provision needed to ensure that
each institution meets its unique mission?
23
Australia – moving in the right direction
Key initiatives to spread the benefits across the university system include:
Mission-based compact agreements;
Establishment of an $11 billion Education Investment Fund with dividends from 2009 with
an objective to “advance the development of a world-class Australian higher education
sector”;
Immediate distribution to all universities of $500 million Better Universities Renewal Fund,
with follow-up funding of $500 million in 2009;
Establishment of 1,000 Future Fellowships for recruitment and retention of early to midcareer researchers;
Doubling of Australian Postgraduate Scholarships from 4,800 to 9,600;
International focus to all Australian Research Council schemes to promote global
awareness;
The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative, using a combination of metrics
and peer review, to fund research excellence wherever it is found and to identify Australia’s
24
national capability in 154 Fields of Research.
Conclusion
The choice for governments is to be a servant to the
vagaries of university rankings or have the confidence
to set their own agenda and move beyond rankings.
Focusing on world class systems is one alternative – in
which institutions might benefit from promoting their
standing within a strong university system.
Policy change on its own is insufficient – the ‘culture of
comparison’ (clean and free of self interest) still needs
to be developed. So do systems of classification and
global benchmarking.
25
Questions and
discussion?
26