A Chance for European Universities

8/2/2019 A Chance for European Universities

1/225

A Chance for

EuropeanUniversities

jo ritzen

amsterdam university press

pre-

publica

tion

pr

e-publi

ca

tion


2/225

A Chance for European Universities


3/225


4/225

A Chance for European Universities

Or: Avoiding the Looming University Crisis in Europe

Jo Ritzen


5/225

This publication is called a 'pre-publication' as it is not final. It is pub-lished online in order to review and discuss its contents and raise aware-ness about the chances for European universities to contribute to a morevibrant Europe, to sustainable economic growth and social cohesion.Following the online discussion, the author will revise the manuscript,resulting in a final publication.ISBN 9789089642295E-ISBN 9789048512386NUR 828Cover: Studio Jan de BoerDesign: Amsterdam University Press Jo Ritzen / Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2009All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved

above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introducedinto a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (elec-tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without thewritten permission of both the copyright owner and the author of thebook.


6/225

Preface

However much I dislike the ideas, I love the frankness and honesty ofthe second opening sentence of Friedrich Hayeks Road to Serfdom

(1944), namely This is a political book. I do not wish to disguise it bydescribing it [] by the more elegant and ambitious name of an essay insocial philosophy.

This book is also a plea, as best documented as can be, namely tocommit European universities to the best use of talents for social, culturaland economic progress.

The evidence that European universities can do better is overwhelm-ing yet the plea is subjective and derived from the conviction that it isa duty of the European to build further on the European temple of liberties

and their embedding in a society which is rich in all those aspects, whichcount for the quality of life. It is not a temple on forbidden fenced offterritory but rather it is open and part of a globalized world.

What I hope to achieve with this book is to inform university staff,politicians, employers, employees, the educated community on thebrakes we have put on our universities and on the alternative before us.

Of course, communal actions to release the brakes? That would besplendid.This book is based on or includes parts of papers that I have presentedbefore. Among these are the papers found on www.maastrichtuniversi-ty.nl:Korea, Seoul, Presentation for Global HR Forum 2008:The Financial Context for Innovating Universities to Prepare for GlobalLeadership,The Netherlands, Maastricht, GRE Board Meeting, 2008:EU Master Admission under Bologna, Setting the Stage.

Japan, Tokyo, Presentation for UNU/UNESCO Conference, 2007:Higher Educations Perfect Storm,


7/225

Ireland, Dublin, Presentation to the Royal Irish Academy, 2007:Why European Higher Education Fails or How It Could Fly By Its Tails,

Greece, Athens, Keynote Address at OECD Ministerial Meeting, 2006:Scenarios for Higher Education, 2020 orWhen Will China Invade Iran?

6 A CHANCE FOR EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES


8/225

Acknowledgments

This book has greatly benefitted from my long march through the uni-versities dating back to my first encounter with the economics of educa-

tion in 1968 through Louis Emmery. The longer the march, the more Irealize the impact of my professors, Kees Verhagen and Huibert Kwa-kernaak in Delft and the wise, brilliant pedagogue Jan Tinbergen in Rot-terdam in my bachelor and master education.

In Berkeley I taught, but I learned more with Charles Benson as mymentor. The marine like training in the political economy of education under the soft guidance of Wim Kok has also an incredible impact.

My colleague ministers Gudrund Hermes and Eduardo Grilo en-larged my mental frame of mind.

And in this passage through university education and research therewere many, many other people who have inspired me and nourished mewith concepts and ideas.

When the moment came to pull this together as inevitability so itseems my friends and colleagues of Maastricht University were of greathelp but so were many others of whom I mention Debra Stewart, Ye-huda Elkana, Jean-Robert Pitte, Philippe Aghion and Sijbolt Norda.

I am most grateful to all of them but maybe mostly for the joy (Amer-icans would say: the fun) of learning from them.


9/225


10/225

Executive summary

European universities are underexploited economically, culturally andsocially - for a stronger Europe. There is an urgent need to alter the context

for European universities so that they can strengthen the European com-petitive position through economic innovation, increased social cohesionand a more vibrant cultural dynamism.

The present position of Europes universities is something like abronze Olympic medal: very well represented among the worlds top 200universities, but almost absent in the top 50. Societys feelings aboutuniversities are likewise lukewarm, sometimes ecstatic but also oftencritical on the ivory tower image.

Europe has to choose to go for gold in a world competition with a

strong US system of Higher Education and newly emerging runner upslike China and India. The unbalanced demographics in the world witha virtually constant supply of graduates in the developed West and a po-tentially fast increase in the number of graduates in developing countries pose both new threats and new opportunities for European universities.

Europe can cash in on the opportunities by innovating its higher ed-ucation, taking into account the lesson learned on effective education foran international labour market, on the valorisation of knowledge but alsoon the matching and selection of students.

The context needs to be changed to make European universities moresuccessful: The Bologna process has to be denationalized with European-wide

accreditation and quality control. The organization of universities should be moved on from

bureaucratic to innovative. The finance needs to be rebalanced so that the public budget cuts of

the past decades can be met by private sources.The 2008/2009 economic crisis (never waste a good crisis) is an excellentopportunity for a paradigm shift all over Europe to promote excellence

together with emancipation of the new Europeans in universities.European universities: yes, they can do so much more for Europe.


11/225


12/225

Table of contents

0

Table of contents 11List of Figures 15List of Tables 15List of Abbreviations 15List of Country Abbreviations 15

1 Introduction 251.1 A Chance 251.2 Europe or European Countries 301.3 European Universities 33

2 The Looming Crisis 392.1 Europe in the Rankings 392.2 What makes universities better? 522.3 European Universities used to be top 562.4 Innovation and Competitiveness 592.5 Uneasiness 672.6 Conclusion and summary 69

Appendix 2.1 Research expenditures by sector (US, EU15) 71

3 Challenges 753.1 Which Europe? 753.2 European Leadership 763.3 The globalized labour market 80

3.4 Equality of Opportunity as an Economic Requirement 833.5 Universities are underexploited for economic growth 843.6 Conclusions 89

4 The Battle for Talent: Europe has a Chance 91


13/225

4.1 Introduction 914.2 Europes Chance 924.2.1 Europes Demand and Supply of Graduates 92

4.2.2 The World-Wide Asymmetry in Demography 984.3 On Talent Migration 1054.3.1 Deciding to Study Abroad 1054.3.2 Intra-European Mobility 1094.3.3 Europe and the World 1174.4 Conclusions and Policy Proposals 1284.4.1 Intra-European Mobility revisited 1284.4.2 Europe and the World revisited 129

Appendix 4.1 Foreign students within the EU 131

5 Stop the Financial Strangling of European universities 1375.1 The Erosion of Public Finance 1375.2 Equality of Opportunity and Beware of Too High Tuition

Fees 1505.3 Effective Finance and other income 1525.4 Summary and conclusion 155

6 Give Innovation a Chance: the context 1596.1 The Context of a University 1596.2 The Caterpillar and the Butterfly 1606.2.1 The Oligarchic University 1636.2.2 The Democratised University 1646.2.3 The Bureaucratic University 1676.2.4 The Professional University 1686.3 The Bologna Process 1716.4 Differentiation, Selection and Equity 1776.5 Reward Learning about Learning 1826.6 Summary and conclusion 187

7 The Future of European Universities 1897.1 A Coherent View is Needed 1897.2 Building Blocks of a Coherent View 191

8 Appendix A 1979 Appendix B 19910 Appendix C 20111 Bibliography 207



14/225

Notes 223TABLE OF CONTENTS 13


15/225


16/225

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Times Higher Education Ranking 2007 - 41Figure 2.2 Europes Top Universities 2007 (in the Times Higher Educa-

tion Ranking 2007) - 42Figure 2.3 Brain Drain: Migration Balance of Citizens and Immigrantswith Higher Education (2001) - 59Figure 2.4 Figure 2.4 Trends in Citation Impact Scores (1993-1996 versus2003-2006) - 61Figure 2.5 The 2007 Summary Innovation Index - 64Figure 2.6 From Ranking to Competitiveness - 65Appendix 2.7.1 Total R&D Expenditure by Sectors of Performance in theEU15 - 72

Appendix 2.8.2 Total R&D Expenditure by Sectors of Performance in theUnited States - 72Figure 3.1 The Production Frontier - 85Figure 4.1 Expected Minimum of Students and the Supply of Graduatesin the EU27 - 94Figure 4.2 Supply of and Demand for Graduates in the EU27 (in millions)- 98Figure 4.3 Relevant Age Group (20 24 years) for University Education1990 - 2005 - 99Figure 4.4 Total Relevant Age Group (20 24 years) for University Ed-ucation 1950 2050 - 100Figure 4.5 Total Relevant Age Group for University Education in Europe1950 2050 Males and Females aged 20-24 Years - 101Figure 4.6 Average Participation Rates in Rich and Poor Countries Par-ticipation = Students / Age Group 20-24 - 102Figure 4.7 Mobility is on the Rise in the EU-27 - 114Figure 4.8 Student Mobility Flows: Europe and the World, 2005 - 118Figure 4.9 The Proportion of Foreign Students Among All Tertiary stu-dents and the Regional Distribution of Foreign Students Nationalities

2002/2003 - 119Figure 4.10 Student Mobility Flows: The United States and the World,2003 - 126Figure 4.11 Migration of University Students: Japan 2005 - 128


17/225

Figure 5.1 Decrease in Expenditure per student in the Netherlands,1950-2005 - 138Figure 5.2 Expenditures on higher education per student in the US, 1960,

1969-2007 (Current and adjusted by Higher Education Price Index1982=100) - 139Figure 5.3 Taxation rates (Public Expenditures to GDP) over time - 142Figure 5.4 Public and Private Expenditure on Higher Education as a Per-centage of Total Expenditure on Higher Education in OECD countries,2005 (top) and 1995 (bottom) - 144Figure 5.5 Total Expenditures per Student against Private Expenditureper Student, both relative to GDP per Capita, 2005 - 147Figure 5.6 Expenditure for Higher Education as a Percentage of GDP

(2002) - 148Figure 5.7 Change in Expenditures per Student on Educational Institu-tions (Tertiary) for all Services in Constant Prices, 1995, 2000 and 2005(Index 2000 = 100) - 149Figure 5.8 Intergenerational Mobility and Income Inequality - 152Figure 6.1 Forces Influencing Universities with the Dutch Experience -161Figure 6.2 The Position of University systems of Different Countries inthe Triangle, 2005 - 162

Figure 6.3 The Development in Student Numbers in the Netherlands -165Figure 6.4 The academic achievement curve (selected countries) - 179Figure 7.1 Building Blocks of a View on European Universities - 192



18/225

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Change in Age Group 20 24 in the EU, India, Brazil, Chinaand Turkey by Country (Potential Student Population) - 28

Table 1.2 Diversity Within Europe - 32Table 1.3 Participation in universities in the EU (as Percentage of the AgeGroup 20-24) - 34Table 2.1 Ranking by Region, 2008 - 41Table 2.2 Country and Regional Performance in the Rankings in 2008 -44Table 2.3 Ratio higher education/ other public research - 46Table 2.4 R&D expenditure going to HE sector, EU and selected coun-tries, 2005 - 47

Table 2.5 Ranking of the Individual Researchers in the Sciences - 48Table 2.6 Top 20 European Universities Part I (Shanghai Jiao TongRanking, 2006) - 50Table 2.7 Top 20 European Universities1) Part II (THES Ranking, 2008)- 51Table 2.8 THES top 200 rank in 2006 explained by background. - 53Table 2.9 Correlation between budget and university governance, andresearch performance - 55Table 2.10 Effect of budget and autonomy on research performance - 55Table 2.11 How European Universities scored in the THES rankings of2004 and 2007 - 58Table 2.12 Patents Across Different Nations in 2005 - 62Table 2.13 Global Competitiveness Index 2008-2009, Selected Countries- 67Table 3.1 Percentage of students living abroad for work after study - 81Table 3.2 International activities of graduates in their job. - 81Table 3.3 Public internal rates of return for an individual obtaining highereducation as part of initial education - 87Table 3.4 Higher education attainment rates, 2005 (% of population aged

25-64 with completed tertiary education) - 88Table 4.1 Index of the Population 1519 and 2029 in 2015 for OECD andWEI countries (2000=100) - 103Table 4.2 Total enrolment rich (Western European and North American)and poor (all the other) countries over time (1970 2005) - 105


19/225

Table 4.3 Impact of International Orientation of Studies for the Nether-lands - 109Table 4.4 Erasmus student mobility in 2006/2007 - 110

Table 4.5 Foreign Students within the EU in 1998: Top Ten Host andHome countries - 114Table 4.6 Foreign Students within the EU in 2006: Top Ten Host andHome countries - 115Table 4.7 Net Inflow and Outflow of Students in the EU27, 2006 - 116Table 4.8 Foreign Students in HE Worldwide (in Millions) - 118Table 4.9 Foreign Students as a Percentage of Total Students in thecountry (selected countries/regions) 1998 & 2003 - 120Table 4.10 Foreign Students in 2006: Top Ten Host and Home countries

- 121Table 4.11 Foreign-born Share of US Degrees and Enrolments - 125Table 4.12 Percentage of Foreign Born American Nobel Prize Laureates(of All American Nobel Prize Laureates) Per Discipline Per Year - 126Table 4.13 Foreign Students within the EU in 1998: all EU27 countries -132Table 4.14 Foreign Students within the EU in 2006: all EU27 countries- 133Table 5.1 Expenditure and Income Sides of (Effective) Finance - 153



20/225

List of Abbreviations

AASCB accreditation - School accreditation by the Association to AdvanceCollegiate Schools of Business International

ACA - Academic Cooperation AssociationACO - Adviescommissie Onderwijsaanbod (Advisory Committee onCourse Provision)ACT - American College TestingAHELO - Assessment of Higher Education Learning OutcomesAIO - Assistent in opleiding (Assistant in Teaching, research assistant)AMBA accreditation - Program accreditationBafG - Bundesausbildungsfrderungsgesetz (Federal Educational AidAct)

Big Four (also Big 4) - The big four Western European countries: Ger-many, France, Italy and SpainBRIC countries - Refer to the combination of Brazil, Russia, India, andChinaBSA - Binding Study AdviceCEO(s) - Chief executive officer(s)CER - Centre for European ReformCGS - Council of Graduate SchoolsCHE - Centre for Higher Education DevelopmentCHEERS - Careers after Higher Education: a European Research StudyCHEPS - Centre for Higher Education Policy StudiesCPB - Central Planning Bureau (Netherlands Bureau for Economic PolicyAnalysis)CROHO - Centraal Register Opleidingen Hoger Onderwijs (Central Reg-ister for Degree Courses in Higher Education)DAAD - Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German AcademicExchange Service)EC - European CommissionECT - Treaty establishing the European Community

ECTS - Europeaan Credit Transfer SystemEHEA - European Higher Education AreaEQUIS - European Quality Improvement SystemEQUIS accreditation - School accreditation by the Management Devel-opment Network (EFMD)


21/225

Erasmus Programme - European Region Action Scheme for the Mobilityof University Students ProgrammeETS - Educational Testing Service

EU - European UnionEU15 - Comprises the following countries of the European Union: Aus-tria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Ita-ly, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United KingdomEU25 - Comprises the countries of the EU15 plus the 2004 accessioncountries: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Malta, Poland, Slovakia, SloveniaEU27 - Comprises the countries of the EU25 plus the 2007 accessioncountries Bulgaria and Romania

GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGDP - Gross domestic productGPA - Grade Point AverageGRE - Graduate Record ExaminationHE - Higher EducationHOAK - Hoger Onderwijs, Autonomie en Kwaliteit (Higher Education,Autonomy and Quality)i.e. - that isICIS - International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable

developmentICT - Information and Communication TechnologyIHEP - Institute for Higher Education PolicyJT - (Shanghai) Jiao Tong (Ranking)KNAW - Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen (RoyalNetherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)LCU - Local currency unitMIT - Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyNACUBO - National Association of College and University Business Of-ficesNAO - Netherlands Accreditation OrganisationNGO(s) - Non-governmental Organisation(s)Nuffic - Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in High-er EducationNWO - Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, theNetherlands Organisation for Scientific ResearchOECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPhD - Doctor of Philosophy (degree of study programme)PISA - Project International Student Achievement

PPI - Personal Power IndexR&D - Research and developmentROA - Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (ResearchCentre for Education and the Labour Market)SAT - Standardised Achievement Test



22/225

SCI - Science Citation IndexSES - socio-economic statusSII - Summary Innovation Index

Small Seven (also S7) - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Neth-erlands, Norway and SwedenSr. - SeniorSSCI - Social Science Citation IndexSTEM - Science, Technology, Engineering or MathematicsSTW - Technologiestichting STW (Foundation for the Technical Scien-ces)THES - Times Higher Education SupplementTVC - Taakverdeling en Concentratie (Division and Concentration of

Tasks)UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zationUNU - United Nations UniversityUSPTO - United States Patent and Trademark OfficeVAWO - Vakbond voor de wetenschap Voor personeel van universi-teiten, onderzoekinstellingen en universitair medische centra (Associa-tion of Personnel at Universities and Research Institutions)VSNU - Vereniging van Universiteiten (Association of the Universities

in the Netherlands)WEI countries - Countries participating in the World Education Indica-tors (WEI) programmeWHW - Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek (Lawon Higher Education and Research)WUB - Wet Universitaire Bestuurshervorming (University GovernmentReorganisation Act)ZWO - Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver Wetenschappelijk Onder-zoek (Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 21


23/225


24/225

List of Country Abbreviations

AT - AustriaAUS - Australia

BE - BelgiumBG - BulgariaCAN - CanadaCH - SwitzerlandCY - CyprusCZ - Czech RepublicDE - GermanyDK - DenmarkEE - Estonia

ES - SpainFI - FinlandFR - FranceGR - GreeceHU - HungaryIE - IrelandIS - IcelandIT - ItalyJP - JapanKOR - South KoreaLI - LiechtensteinLT - LithuaniaLU - LuxembourgLV - LatviaMT - MaltaNL - NetherlandsNW - NorwayPL - PolandPT - Portugal

RO - RomaniaSE - SwedenSI - SloveniaSK - Slovak RepublicTU - Turkey


25/225

UK - United KingdomUS - United States of America* Indicated if Chile instead



26/225

1 Introduction

1.1 A Chance

The empires of the future will be empires of the mind, said the Euro-pean Churchill in 1943 at the American top university Harvard. Did hesay so at that place because he believed that Europe had lost its initiativeto the US? It is not that Europe should seek new empires. But also Europedoes not want to be overrun by the forces of globalisation and to becomemarginalized in the process.

Indeed, more than a century later, at Lisbon in 2000, European Heads

of State solemnly attested that they would get their countries to makeEurope that most competitive region in the world by 2010 by means ofan extensive knowledge infrastructure an empire of the mind. For thatpurpose they formulated quantitative goals. One of them was that re-search expenditures per year would be raised in each country to 3% ofgross domestic product (GDP) (of which 2% private and 1% public). Uni-versities themselves did not get much attention at this Lisbon meeting,except for the somewhat mythical second quantitative goal of an increasein participation in higher education (HE) to 50% of the age group. I usethe term mythical as there was no clue offered as to the source of thehidden talent or the required action (and finance) to uncover it. But over-all the Lisbon declaration showed how strongly universities and researchhad been recognized as sources of socio-economic development in Eu-rope. Most competitive was the way the Heads described a vibrant Eu-rope, a Europe where young people with ambition, creativity and talent,feel welcome, where there is openness to new knowledge, to creativity,in the arts, in the science and in the economy, in a sustainable way sothat the star Earth can provide hospitality to the nine billion plus peoplewho inhabit her by 2050 and to the billions beyond.

Almost a decade and one deep economic crisis later, the then Euro-pean leaders should be called to accountability. In most of the EuropeanUnion (EU) the Lisbon declaration has turned out to be no more thanwords. To be specific about European universities: European universitieshad and still have a chance to contribute to a vibrant Europe, full of en-


27/225

ergy, with a thriving, sustainable economy. Yet, it is not self-evident thatthis chance is realized with or without the Lisbon declaration. The leastone can say is that European universities are not (yet) in the position of

being the most competitive in attracting talent. As Lambert and Butler(2006, p. 1) put it: Europes universities, taken as a group, are failing toprovide the intellectual and creative energy that is required to improvethe continents poor economic performance. Too few of them are inter-national centres of research excellence, attracting the best talent fromaround the world.

European universities, however, are also not (yet) in a crisis as thequote might suggest. Unfortunately, my public policy instinct tells methat this could be a problem in itself because a crisis would propel im-

mediate action and change. As a group, European universities do alrightor slightly less than alright leading to a political conclusion of notalways so benign neglect and to indifference or sometimes a clear anti-university attitude among the population. The need to cut Governmentbudgets as a result of the mounting deficits the effect of the 2008/2009crisis may actually be such a crisis-related opportunity for radicalchange.

How can it be that European universities are not placed by politi-cians and population alike on the shield, are not adored while the staff

works so tirelessly, while salaries outside of universities even in thepublic sector are higher for the same talents, where students (and theirparents) are by and large happy, where research output per person work-ing in research universities is among the highest in the world?

The complaints are voiced alike by opinion leaders, politicians, em-ployees: There are too few peaks in the European university landscape (as the

quote above takes a point of departure). Therefore, we stand to losetop talent to other parts of the world.

Successful enrolment (admission plus graduation) of students fromsocially disadvantaged (often minority) groups is too low.

Overall drop-out is too high while drop-outs have wasted time so itseems.

University research contributes too little to innovation. University education is not sufficiently related to the demands from

the labour market and in many EU countries the search period for thefirst job is exceedingly long.

While at least 50% of the students are female, the percentage of femalefull professors is often no more than 10 to 20%.

The attention to efficient and effective learning of students is virtuallyabsent and innovations in learning methods occur too rarely.

The uneasiness is also visible in the clear underfinancing of universityeducation the result of a tremendous growth in publicly financed uni-



28/225

versity education which could not be met by increasing tax income orreallocation of budgets in a time in which budget deficits and taxationlevels were reduced. At the same time Lambert and Butler (2006) see the

underfinancing as the main cause for concern for European universitiesto spread their wings. In one view it is - besides financing also a matterof governance and organization.

Let it be clear that as far as one can assess these complaints thisfeeling of uneasiness of society about its universities is as anti-intellec-tualism maybe not restricted to Europe, but is stronger in Europe thanin other countries or regions (like the US and East Asia). It can also beobserved that it is not a new uneasiness: early 20th century Europeanvisitors to the US observe time and again that US universities are more

highly respected by the population at large than they are used to in Eu-rope, see e.g. Berkel (1990) for a description of observations of Dutchscholars visiting the US. Presumably in other parts of the world, univer-sities are better tuned in to society (a point to be further explored inSection 2.4).

A vibrant Europe is a Europe with vibrant universities which have abetter place and a better recognition and appreciation then they have atthe moment Chapter 3 explores more at length the possibilities of uni-versities and (university) research for providing intellectual, economic

and social leadership.The time ahead is one with divergence in demography which is un-paralleled in recent history. The share of the EU population in the worlddeclines between 2008 and 2050 according to UN projections by almostone third (from 7.5% to 5.2%) with the world population increasing from6.5 billion to 9.1 billion (while the EU population decreases from 490million to 470 million).The decades ahead will show decreasing cohorts of the traditional agegroup of 18 to 24 year olds seeking university education as is illustratedby Table 1.1. More of these youngsters come from backgrounds fromwhich university education is traditionally unlikely (Ritzen, 2007a).

INTRODUCTION 27


29/225

Table 1.1 Change in Age Group 20 24 in the EU, India, Brazil, China andTurkey by Country (Potential Student Population)

Country/Region(alphabetically)

Age Group 20-24Change 2050/2005

Country/Region(by rate of change)

Age Group 20-24Change 2050/2005

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstonia

FinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlands

PolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomEU27BrazilChinaIndia

Turkey

-15.6%-9.0%

-60.5%

-1.5%

-43.5%

16.0%

-44.1%

-9.9%

-3.0%

-22.7%

-33.6%

-36.2%

-3.8%

-19.0%

-52.6%

-50.8%

66.7%

-32.3%

7.1%

-60.3%-33.8%

-55.3%

-52.8%

-48.2%

-29.9%

13.7%

2.3%

-23.3%

-11.5%

-21.2%

3.0%

-12.7%

LuxembourgDenmarkSwedenNetherlandsIndiaUnited KingdomCyprus

FranceIrelandBelgiumFinlandBrazilTurkeyAustriaItalyChinaGermanyEU27Spain

MaltaGreecePortugalHungaryCzech RepublicEstoniaSloveniaLithuaniaLatviaSlovakiaRomaniaPoland

Bulgaria

66.7%

16.0%

13.7%

7.1%

3.0%

2.3%

-1.5%

-3.0%-3.8%

-9.0%

-9.9%

-11.5%

-12.7%

-15.6%

-19.0%

-21.2%

-22.7%

-23.3%

-29.9%

-32.3%-33.6%

-33.8%

-36.2%

-43.5%

-44.1%

-48.2%

-50.8%

-52.6%

-52.8%

-55.3%

-60.3%

-60.5%

Source: United Nations Population Division (2008a)

The number of European youngsters participating in university educa-tion is as a result likely to decline despite the Lisbon goal of reaching 50%participation. This goal is derived from participation realized in someEuropean (see Table 1.3) and non-European countries like Japan and Ko-rea, ignoring the difference in homogeneity which may well affect par-ticipation between those countries and most of the European nations.

Unless major shifts occur, European universities are going to losestudents and as a result many will get into a downward spiral. Such aspiral can be observed in countries with a demography which is a bitahead of Europe (like Japan where participation is already so high thatfurther increases are unlikely) or at a demographic hiccup (a minus 1.1%



30/225

in total students enrolled in higher education and a minus 1.4% in newentrants to universities in Spain in 2006). The formula financing of uni-versities based on student numbers forces cutbacks in university expen-

diture when student numbers drop. Cutbacks can affect the working cli-mate, the attractiveness for university staff, student satisfaction, and as aresult, the reputation, making that place less likely to be chosen by pro-spective students, leading to the next round of cutbacks. Depending onthe willingness of governments to come to the rescue, some 510% mightgo broke, be closed and disappear.

A shift is unlikely to occur in Europe in the participation of olderstudents even though in the US now the majority of the master studentsdoes not belong to the traditional age cohort of 1824 year olds (in 2002

only half of the graduate students were between 25 and 34). The promiseof a substantial role of universities in life-long learning is no more likelyin the future than it is now. It is equally unlikely that more students mightcome from outside Europe unless major changes in European universi-ties take place (as Chapter 4 argues). The very brightest of the Europeanstudents are equally likely to continue to be drained to the US, in thefuture as they are now, unless Europe provides a clear alternative.

Ahead of us we can clearly see the crisis coming. A downward spiraldue to demographics very much in line with the general role demo-

graphics has played in the past as unsettling the routines and structuresof society as Baumann (2003) has argued. This crisis might be spurredby the relocation of the talent intensive parts of private industry, like lab-oratories, financial services and ICT services to those areas of the worldwhich are still increasing in the abundance of talent, like India and China.

Gndara (2005) considered this scenario for the US as a perfect storm,even while demographic conditions and the excellence of US universitiescompare favourably to those of Europe. Let it be clear that it is not dem-ographics which cause the crisis: demographics are the catalyst for thecrisis. The obvious and increasing underfinancing (Lambert and Butler,2006) and the substantial institutional and organizational handicaps arelikely to be the too short roots of the tree. When the demographic stormblows the tree is likely too fall.

The Lisbon agreement of 2000 was an excellent step to choose for amore favourable destiny, mitigating or avoiding the pending demograph-ic storm. Yet, as Odile Quintin (2006), Director General for Educationand Culture of the European Commission, noted: Europe has not seri-ously attempted to implement this agreement.This book pleads for new steps, reviving Lisbon and taking it further

into creating a truly attractive European university system for studentsfrom all over the world as a proxy for a Europe of imagination, creativity,knowledge and social cohesion. Not as part of a zero sum game of com-petition world-wide but to contribute to a positive sum game of worlddevelopment. The steps should include ways to end the underfinancing

INTRODUCTION 29


31/225

(Chapter 5) while further developing the innovative university as part ofthe further organizational and institutional development of universities(Chapter 6).

1.2 Europe or European Countries

We speak in this book about Europe in the way Europe has been definedby Ulrich Beck (2006) as a loosely knit combination of nation stateswhich have in the past 50 years been able to turn a century long lastingrivalry between states into a peaceful cooperation driven by a commonmarket, common economic policies, common citizenship and since the

Maastricht Treaty a common currency (albeit not yet shared by all na-tions).The reason to take Europe as the unit of concern is that there is more

world-wide between-difference (between Europe and other parts of theworld) than within-difference (between the European nations) in atti-tudes and values, but also in university systems and lastly, where thelooming crisis catalysed by demographic development is concerned (eventhough Japan and the US are in this element together with Europe). Thedifferences between university systems of the nation states of Europe are

large (as the next section will argue). Yet, the differences compared toother countries (North America, Asia, South America, Africa, and Aus-tralia) are far more pronounced in the following terms. The diversity within the European systems is generally much smaller

than elsewhere. The history of European systems goes back to the 11th century while

that of most other countries is more recent. The enrolment history is also quite different with the US leading in

mass university enrolment in the fifties, Europe following in theseventies and subsequently countries like Japan and Korea evenexceeding the 45% and European enrolment rates in the nineties.

Europe has a common deeply rooted anti-elitist attitude which has trans-lated into a disregard for diversity and a dislike for top talent. Virtuallyevery European language has expressions for Swimming with the tide or going with the tide, and Acting out of character or being the odd one out.Still, the within-diversity is substantial as Table 1.2 shows:

The population size differs substantially between the countries of the EUwith Germany being the giant but also with dwarfs as Luxembourg,Malta and Cyprus. Demographics also differ substantially among Euro-pean countries over the period 2005-2050.



32/225

Per capita incomes differ also substantially with Luxembourg in the leadwhile the newly accessed countries Bulgaria and Romania are the lag-gards with a per capita income of no more than 5% of that of Luxembourg.

The degree of inclusion of European countries in the global economydiffers tremendously, with smaller countries like Belgium, Austria, Swe-den and Denmark as frontrunners whereas the new EU members Bul-garia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania rank low on the globalization index.This has not changed since 2000. However, the UK and export-championGermany rank surprisingly low, in a similar league as the Southern Eu-ropean countries and Slovenia and Slovakia. A general tendency between2000 and 2006 is an increase degree of globalization in the newer EUcountries and a decrease in the older Member States (ETH Zurich, 2008).

The table also shows overwhelming differences in the attachment whichthe different nations feel to Europe, the Europhile index, led by Ireland(the famous no-voter in 2007!), the Netherlands, Luxembourg andSpain. The Euro-sceptics are Austria, Finland and Latvia. The four leadersare the same as in 2000, only in different rank order (in 2000: Luxem-bourg with 79%, Ireland with 75%, Netherlands with 71%, and Spain with63%). Austria and Finland were already quite Euro-sceptic in 2000 withonly 38% and 39%, respectively, of the population saying that member-ship in the European Union is a good thing. Still, the extreme Euro-scep-

tic was the UK with 29% in 2000, followed by Sweden with 34%. Thepercentage of the population who say that membership in the EU is agood thing has increased in most old EU Member States between 2000and 2006; only in the Southern European countries (Italy, Greece, Por-tugal) and Austria, it has decreased and in Finland remained the same(European Commission, 2001).

INTRODUCTION 31


33/225

Table 1.2 Diversity Within EuropeCountry Population in

20051)Income per

capita in 20052)GlobalizationRank 20053)

EurophileIndex (Rank) in20064)

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstonia

FinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlands

PolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomEU-27

8.2410.487.740.76

10.245.421.35

5.2562.8282.4711.1010.094.16

58.612.303.410.470.40

16.32

38.1710.5521.635.392.00

43.409.03

60.23492.00

29,70028,8002,800

18,0009,800

38,3008,200

30,00027,50027,20017,8008,800

39,10024,4005,7006,100

65,00011,90031,500

6,40014,1003,7007,100

14,40020,90032,60030,40022,500

21

4018105

15

11142232127

2738318

244

3017422319166

26

34% (26)65% (5)53% (14a)49% (19)52% (15)65% (6)51% (16)

39% (24)49% (17)57% (9)53% (14b)49% (20)77% (1)56% (10)37% (25)59% (8)72% (4)44% (22)74% (2)

56% (11)47% (21)62% (7)55% (12)54% (13)72% (3)49% (18)42% (23)

Notes:1) Population in million at 1st January of each year; Source: Eurostat (2008b).2) GDP per capita in Euro per inhabitant at current prices; Source: Eurostat (2008a).

3) The KOF Index of Globalization includes 158 countries in total (The ranks are basedon the position of the respective country among all 158 countries in 2005); Source:ETH Zurich (2008).

4) The index represents the percentage of people who think that the countrys member-ship in the EU is a good thing; rank of country among EU countries in brackets;Source: European Commission (2007).

This is the picture of diversity. Yet, when European countries decide ontheir cultural heritage, they notice the common European identity, car-ried by composers like Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann,

Debussy and Hndel, and artists like Picasso, Michelangelo, Bernini,Matisse, Rembrandt and Da Vinci[, according to Bevers (2008). He] an-alysed the final secondary-school examinations in the subjects music andfine arts in ten European countries. To me, it was not about the questionof knowledge about education, he found, but about cultural exchange



34/225

between the countries. Final examination assignments are a good indi-cator for that. Bevers considers the European content of the assignmentsone of the most striking results of his research. If there were questions

about the culture outside Europe they almost always dealt with Americanculture. [He] states the existence of a double loyalty: in every country thecultural canon is comprised of the own cultural heritage, and that is filledup with a European canon, for which a broad and striking agreementexists.] (translated from Oosterbaan, 2008).

Let it be clear that I do not want to imply by taking Europe as the unitof analysis that European universities should be part of the competenciesof the EU, that their chance should be realized by action from Brussels.Such an implication would give rise to an ideological debate which is not

likely to bring great prospects closer for European universities. So: wherepolicy suggestions are made, they refer to suggestions for national poli-cies on the assumption that national policies act in line with the principleof subsidiarity meaning that whatever can be accomplished by nationalpolicies should be left there assuming that national policies are attunedto those of other EU countries but without transferring decision makingpower to the EU.

1.3 European Universities

With very few exceptions (like the small College of Bruges) Europeanuniversities are national universities in countries belonging to the EU.They overwhelmingly harbour national students and teach by and largein the national language. A European Statute for a European universityunder which it could enrol (and be financed for) students based on supra-national legislation or supra-national agreements is yet to be developed(analogous to the European Company Statute). As a result, when wespeak of European universities we mean the universities of the individualEU countries. I use the term universities broadly to include all institu-tions of higher education in the definition of the OECD (2007c) asISCED levels 5 (A and B) and 6. Most EU countries distinguish betweenresearch universities and other institutes of higher learning without re-search or with limited applied research.

The university systems in the EU countries are in many of the West-ern European countries mature in terms of participation of youngsters,while in particular in the new EU countries participation is still quite low.

Table 1.3 indicates the participation rates. In the new EU countries par-ticipation may not be as high as those of the older EU countries or ofKorea (almost 69% in 1997) and Japan (almost 43% in 1999 and 56% in2006). The Heads of State of the EU decided in 2000 to formulate theLisbon goal of an enrolment of 50% of the age group by 2010.

INTRODUCTION 33


35/225

Table 1.3 Participation in universities in the EU (as Percentage of the Age Group20-24)

1998 2002 2006

BelgiumBulgariaCzech RepublicDenmarkGermanyEstoniaIrelandGreece

SpainFranceItalyCyprusLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgHungaryMaltaNetherlandsAustriaPoland

PortugalRomaniaSloveniaSlovakiaFinlandSwedenUnited KingdomEU27

n.a.

41.2

23.6

51.2

47.0

45.4

47.8

44.7

52.7

52.8

46.1

n.a.

43.1

39.3

7.5

29.9

n.a.

46.8

50.6

39.1

42.820.5

45.9

24.3

78.7

51.1

55.0

45.5

57.1

40.2

35.1

61.8

45.4

62.7

54.1

64.3

58.1

52.3

54.6

26.0

68.3

62.6

11.4

45.3

24.4

53.3

46.4

60.6

51.632.8

65.7

32.5

87.2

74.2

62.0

52.9

61.9

45.4

48.3

78.6

47.2

65.6

54.1

89.3

61.9

54.0

64.2

32.1

73.4

76.7

9.6

65.0

30.4

60.1

47.9

64.7

52.352.0

82.5

44.2

92.5

80.2

58.5

58.5

Source: Eurostat (2008b)

The university systems of the EU share the history of the first uni-versities established in Bologna (1088) and Paris (1150), followed by Ox-ford (1167), Cambridge (1209), Salamanca (1218), Montpellier (1220), Pa-dua (1222), Naples (1224), Toulouse (1229), Prague (1348), Heidelberg(1386), and Louvain (1425; see Compayr, 1893). These were in the MiddleAges tiny institutions even if one considers that the population in Eu-ropean countries was less than one fiftieth of the present population with a participation rate of no more than 1.75% established as a corpora-tion of teachers and students with broad support from the reigning roy-

alty and the Pope (or one of the Popes or other Church dignitaries). Thefirst students of the medieval universities were almost all clerics. Theirsocial background differs, however. Those who came from the middleclass were mainly found at the faculty of arts while the more prestigiousstudents studied law or medicine. Students from a higher social back-



36/225

ground like knightly descent or membership of the urban upper classof upper middle class (Regg and Ridder-Symoens, 2003, p. 200) weremainly specialised students in their twenties or thirties who aimed at an

examination or even doctorate degree, that often allowed them to becometeachers themselves afterwards. The students were wealthy, the univer-sity was well endowed and catered for an international student popula-tion (not only from the own region or country). An excellent and detailedaccount of the history of European universities is presented in the threevolumes under the editorship of Walter Regg (2003, 2004) and Reggand Ridder-Symoens (2003). They show that equality of opportunity al-ways has been part of the European legacy: Poverty was no obstacle toadmission, but in general no particular consideration was shown as far

as the payment of fees was concerned. Those who set the fees in eachcase had to examine the ability or inability of the student to pay. The poorstudents were urged to meet as far as they could the financial obligationsconnected with their matriculation. Strictly speaking, deferment of thepayment of fees was to be allowed only [] until the onset of a betterfortune (pp. 186-7). Basically there was already some sort of income-contingent loan system, at least informally!As far as career prospects are concerned, the accounts differ. While ac-cording to Regg and Ridder-Symoens (2003), having attended or grad-

uated from university did not count as much as the status by birth, ac-cording to Rudy (1984), graduates from the first European universitieshad good chances in the clergy, the government and as lawyers and doc-tors, it seems. Although usually little is known about them, of some stu-dents, more is reported due to their later fame as ministers, civil serv-ants, or leaders of their communities (Maag, 2004, p. 102). Moreover,there was high demand for law students, for example, because an edu-cation in Roman Law was the ordinary preparation for the career of thesecular as well as of the ecclesiastical lawyer (Rashdall, 1895, p. 112).

The common history got a bifurcation in the 19th century with thewritings of Cardinal Newman (1858) in Ireland (then part of the UK) andWilhelm von Humboldt (1793) in Germany. Both became the godfathersof a new type of university. The Humboldtian research university wasgeared towards producing social leadership. It is more known for themeans which von Humboldt had supported to produce social leadership:freedom of research and teaching for the individual professor instead ofresearch and teaching directed by and to be accounted for to the principalof the university (King or Church).

Cardinal Newman (1858) in the same vein argued for an independence

of research and teaching from the principal, yet, considered the com-munity of the college to be more important than the individual chair. Buteven while the ideas were so alike the university development in Germanyand the UK went into different directions: Germany along a strict model

INTRODUCTION 35


37/225

of all universities are the same while the UK and Ireland allowed dif-ferentiation between universities including selectivity of students.

When one compares the university systems in the EU one can dis-

tinguish:The UK and Ireland with a highly differentiated and selective system,allowing (in the UK) for substantial tuition fees. In Section 2.1 Europe inthe Rankings the UK system comes out as a shining example also inthe sense of providing competition to the US in the top 20, although onthe basis of universities among the top 200 divided by population the(non-selective) systems of the Netherlands and Norway are superior.The systems of the Big Four of the old EU: Germany, France, Italy andSpain without differentiation or selectivity, and without tuition fees in

research universities. Differentiation does exist in Germany between theFachhochschulen (polytechnic institutes) and the research universities,while in France the Grandes coles are differentiated from the researchuniversities. The Big Four are underperformers, as Section 2.1 Europe inthe Rankings shows.The research universities of the small seven of the old EU (Austria, Bel-gium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) havegenerally enjoyed substantial reform in the past decades. Although theresearch universities are undifferentiated and tuition fees are low, these

research universities are doing reasonably well.The university system in the newly accessed countries which generallyhave the serious handicap of the transition from the Soviet Era to the NewTimes including too limited resources.The OECD has provided a service to analyse the university systems of itsmember countries (and sometimes also non-member countries). OECD(2008c) provides an overview of the results of these studies for the 24participating countries, including the following list of EU countries: Bel-gium (Flemish Community), the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,France, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, andthe United Kingdom. Generally, governments put more and more em-phasis on tertiary education because it is recognised as benefitting thesocial and economic development. Of course, the countries differ withrespect to their tertiary education policy but some common trends canbe identified. In all countries, the higher education sector has grown andnow includes different types of students. Increasingly, more females andalso more mature people attend tertiary education institutions, and thestudent population is more mixed in terms of socio-economic back-

ground, ethnicity and previous education (OECD, 2008, p. 3). Alongwith this expansion came diversification and new funding arrangements.In all countries, the importance of accountability and performance, i.e.quality assurance, and of fostering international networks and collabo-ration, both for teaching and research, have been stressed.



38/225

The best thing which has happened to European universities in thepast decades is the Bologna agreement: EU nations (but not exclusivelyEU nations) will create a similar structure (the bachelor-master structure)

for their universities. The potential impact of this move is, indeed, thecreation of a European university space in which students can more easilystudy outside of the boarders of their own country. Such a space mightcreate the kind of competition-tide between universities which lifts allboats. In Section 6.4 the present implementation of Bologna is dis-cussed as a half empty glass. In any case, Bologna is not a sufficient con-dition for realizing the chance for European universities to serve theirsocieties in line with the demands of a vibrant nation.

INTRODUCTION 37


39/225

Notes

1 Source: Eurostat (2008b)

2 Source: Council of Graduate Schools (2008)

3 Percentage of students in higher education of the total population aged 18 to 21, Source:

Education Encyclopaedia - StateUniversity.com(2009).

4 Percentage of Students in ISCED 5 and 6 of the total population aged 20 to 24, Source:

Eurostat (2008b)

5 The Reichsfrequenz (matriculations within the Holy Roman Empire) between 1385

and 1505 reached a high point of 1.75 per cent yearly, despite a concurrent decline inthe population growth (Regg and Ridder-Symoens, 2003, p. 188). The Reichsfre-

quenz refers to the students matriculated at those universities that had registers listing

the students.

6 See Santiago et. al. (2008), Vol. 1-3, for the detailed reports.



40/225

2 The Looming Crisis

2.1 Europe in the Rankings

And then in 2003 came the first ranking of universities world-wide,brought out by the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It was pro-duced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University originally to get an assessmentof its own position world-wide, and therefore, referred to as the Jiao Tongranking hereafter. Later, in 2004, it was followed by the Times HigherEducation Supplement (THES) ranking.

The rather dismal story of European universities in these interna-

tional rankings has already repeatedly been brought to the attention ofthe public (e.g. Winckler, 2008 or Lambert and Butler, 2006): Europeanuniversities are in general far below those of the US while being compa-rable in numbers of students (16.3 million students versus 15.9 in the USin 2003). The rankings substantiated suspicions of the clear dominanceof the US for top-university education, which has attracted so many tal-ented foreign youngsters including Europeans to study in the US andoften to stay there for longer or even shorter periods of time. This is thepicture which provides the challenge for Europe to do better and in itsturn attract youngsters from all over the world to study and possibly tostay for a while in a manner of brain circulation, creating experiences ofyoungsters with other people and cultures which is essential for worldpeace and understanding.

Of course top quality is not the same as average quality. Europeansare fond of defending their rather dismal attraction for top talent bypointing to a presumed high average performance of European univer-sities. The weakness of this defence is first the implicit assumption thata high average excludes top performance while second, the assertion thaton average, European universities do better than US ones is based on

casual observations and not proven fact.High averages of course can be compatible with top performance bysome, while others fall below the average, if societies are willing to allowfor a (dynamic) differentiation. If falling below the average also meansthat universities do not reach a minimum quality, then the price for dif-


41/225

ferentiation is clearly too high. This price, however, can be avoided ifuniversities would differentiate according to different elements of qual-ity, so that universities which do not claim to be top in research or inter-

nationalization (important elements in THES and Jiao Tong) still cansustain strong standards in education and would serve emancipation, i.e.bringing new groups with little or no higher education experience in thesocial context into higher education.

The rankings of THES and Jiao Tong are highly myopic, as educa-tional quality is measured in a rather imprecise way. The OECDs AME-LO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes, seewww.oecd.org/edu/amelo) provides a perspective that means in the fu-ture better measures will be available.

The THES ranking uses six indicators contributing with differentweights to the overall score: Peer review (40%) Recruiter review (10%) International faculty score (5%) International students score (5%) Ration faculty/students score (20%) Citations/faculty score (20%)

The Shanghai ranking is entirely based on research accomplishments inthe sciences by universities (Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai JiaoTong University, 2008a): Number of alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Field Medals (10%) Number of staff winning Nobel Prizes and Field Medals (20%) Highly cited researchers (20%) Articles indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and

Science Citation Index (SCI) (20%) Articles published in the journals Science and nature (20%) Performance in respect to size of universities (10%)It is useful to make a distinction in the European presence among theTop 20, Top 21-100 and Top 101-200 between the UK and the rest of Eu-rope (Table 2.1) for the rankings of 2008. The THES ranking of 2008 isdepicted in Figure 2.1 (with for Europe only the distinction between theUK and the rest of Europe) and Figure 2.2 for Europe by groups of coun-tries.



42/225

Table 2.1 Ranking by Region, 2008THES Jiao Tong

Top20

Top21-100

Top101-200

Top20

Top21-100

Top101-200

US 13 24 21 17 37 36

EU { UKBig FourSmall SevenOther EU

4

0

0

0

13

5

10

4

12

12

15

7

2

0

0

0

9

9

8

6

11

18

9

7

Asia 1 11 19 1 4 4

AUS, CAN 2 13 11 0 7 5

Other 0 0 4 0 0 10

Total 20 80 101 20 80 100

Sources: Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2009a),QS Ltd (2009).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-20 21-100 101-200

UK

Others

AUS, CAN, NZAsia

Other Europe

US

Figure 2.1 Times Higher Education Ranking 2007

Source: based on data from QS Ltd (2007).

THE LOOMING CRISIS 41


43/225

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-20 21-100 101-200

IE

NL, BE

SE, NO, DN, FI

AT, CH

FR

DE

E, I, GR

UK

Figure 2.2 Europes Top Universities 2007 (in the Times Higher EducationRanking 2007)

Source: based on data from QS Ltd (2007).

The THES ranking shows the important position of the UK definitivelywhen one compares it to the population size. At the same time: the THESranking is quite UK-biased (the first two scores come mainly from pro-fessors who are close to the Times in the UK, Australia, Malaysia).However, also in the Jiao Tong the UK universities do really well!

This makes us in general more interested in the relationship be-

tween top universities and the population size of a country. Table 2.2compares the performance of all countries, which are represented in theTHES ranking 2008 and the Jiao Tong ranking 2008. The ranking per-formance is defined as the ratio of the share of domestic universities intotal universities in a given range of ranks to the share of domestic pop-ulation in the world population. In addition to this, the ranking perform-ance of each country or region is compared to that of the US, which givesa sort of index where the US is 1. In the top 20, the UK performs best inthe THES ranking, followed by Australia, preceding the US. But whenthe focus is on research, as is the case for the Jiao Tong ranking, the USis clearly the No. 1, followed by the UK. Canada makes an appearance inthe top 20 THES performance indicator but not in the Jiao Tong one,while Japan is represented in both.



44/225

Moving on to the next range of ranks, the top 21 to 100 universities,other European countries than the UK appear. Switzerland is in Europeamong the top performers relative to population size in both rankings

followed by Denmark, the Netherlands, England (the UK) and Finlandwhile Sweden is the No. 1 in terms of research followed by Switzerlandand Denmark. Clearly, in this range of ranks, Europe does far better thanthe US in both rankings. In the THES, some universities in Asia andOceania also outperform the US universities.

For the top 101-200 ranks, a similar picture emerges with Switzerlandon top, followed (in Europe) by the Netherlands and Belgium for theTHES ranking, while in the Jiao Tong rankings the Netherlands, Swit-zerland and Belgium lead the pack in Europe.

Of course, the Jiao Tong ranking shows a slightly different picture thanthe THES ranking. Compared to the per capita performance of the US,European universities are not well represented, especially in the top 20.This would also be the case for the range from rank 21 to 50, in which 19universities are located in the US. Greek and Irish universities are notranked among the top 200 in 2008 at all.



45/225

Table

2.2

CountryandRegionalPerformanceintheRankingsin2008

THESRanking2008

JiaoTongRanking2008

Ran

kingper

formance

Ran

kingper

formance

relative

toUS

Ran

kingper

formance

Ran

kingper

formance

relative

toUS

Country

Region

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

101-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

10

1-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top101-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

101-200

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Spain

Sweden

UK

EUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEU

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

22.

05

0.

00

7.

97

30.

92

16.

76

2.

72

3.

07

0.

00

19.

02

0.

00

20.

42

0.

00

18.

33

17.

91

8.

02

25.

24

12.

24

0.

00

2.

15

6.

49

6.

00

15.

06

1.

12

28.

31

1.

50

14.

52

13.

10

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

1.

57

0.

00

1.

23

4.

76

2.

58

0.

42

0.

47

0.

00

2.

93

0.

00

3.

14

0.

00

2.

82

2.

76

1.

78

5.

61

2.

72

0.

00

0.

48

1.

44

1.

33

3.

34

0.

25

6.

29

0.

33

3.

22

2.

91

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

11.

02

0.

00

0.

00

30.

92

16.

76

4.

08

6.

15

0.

00

10.

21

0.

00

36.

67

12.

40

8.1

0

25.5

0

12.3

7

0.0

0

4.3

5

6.5

6

5.6

6

28.5

9

1.5

2

0.0

0

12.1

3

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

60

0.

00

0.

00

3.

09

1.

67

0.

41

0.

61

0.

00

1.

02

0.

00

3.

66

1.

24

1.

04

3.

27

1.

59

0.

00

0.

56

0.

84

0.

73

3.

67

0.

19

0.

00

1.

56

Norway

Switzerland

Eu

rope/EFTA

Eu

rope/EFTA

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

33.

57

14.

02

35.

45

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

5.

17

3.

11

7.

87

0.

00

0.

00

17.

70

33.

57

0.0

0

26.8

5

0.

00

0.

00

1.

77

3.

35

0.

00

3.

44

SouthAfrica

Africa

0.

00

0.

00

1.

36

0.

00

0.

00

0.

30

China

HongKong

Japan

Singapore

SouthKorea

Taiwan

Thailand

As

ia

As

ia

As

ia

As

ia

As

ia

As

ia

As

ia

0.

00

0.

00

2.

65

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

13

36.

25

1.

99

36.

57

3.

50

0.

00

0.

00

0.

20

9.

57

3.

15

0.

00

1.

39

2.

91

0.

99

0.

00

0.

00

0.

19

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

02

5.

58

0.

31

5.

63

0.

54

0.

00

0.

00

0.

05

2.

13

0.

70

0.

00

0.

31

0.

65

0.

22

2.

65

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

1.

99

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

2.6

5

14.6

3

1.4

0

2.9

4

0.

14

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

20

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

34

1.

88

0.

18

0.

38

notrepresented

notrepresented

notrepresented

notrepresented

notrepresented

notrepresented



46/225

notrepresented

notrepresented

Table

2.2

CountryandRegionalPerformanceintheRankingsin2008

THESRanking2008

JiaoTongRanking2008

Ran

kingper

formance

Ran

kingper

formance

relative

toUS

Ran

kingper

formance

Ran

kingper

formance

relative

toUS

Country

Region

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

101-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

10

1-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top101-200

Top

20

Top

21-100

Top

101-200

India

Russia

Brazil

BR

IC/Asia

BR

IC

BR

IC/South

Am

erica

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

11

0.

47

0.

35

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

03

0.

10

0.

08

0.

00

0.

00

0.

60

0.

00

0.0

0

0.3

5

0.

00

0.

00

0.

06

0.

00

0.

00

0.

05

Argentina

Mexico

So

uthAmerica

So

uthAmerica

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

1.

68

0.

62

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

37

0.

14

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

1.6

9

0.6

2

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

00

0.

22

0.

08

Australia

NewZealand

Oceania

Oceania

16.

02

0.

00

24.

02

19.

95

6.

34

31.

60

1.

14

0.

00

3.

70

3.

07

1.

41

7.

02

0.

00

12.

01

9.6

1

0.

00

1.

20

1.

23

Canada

US

NorthAmerica

NorthAmerica

10.

15

14.

08

10.

15

6.

50

14.

07

4.

50

0.

72

1.

00

1.

56

1.

00

3.

12

1.

00

0.

00

18.

41

10.

15

10.

02

4.0

6

7.8

0

0.

00

1.

00

1.

01

1.

00

0.

52

1.

00

Israel

MiddleEast

0.

00

11.

97

18.

96

0.

00

1.

84

4.

21

0.

00

11.

97

28.7

2

0.

00

1.

19

3.

68

EUcountries

EU(excl.UK)

Europe(EU15,NOR

andSWI)

Asia(incl.India)

3.

55

0.

00

3.

55

0.

89

6.

43

3.

55

7.

10

2.

66

7.

20

5.

09

8.

08

2.

81

0.

25

0.

00

0.

25

0.

06

0.

99

0.

55

1.

09

0.

41

1.

60

1.

13

1.

79

0.

62

1.

85

0.

00

1.

79

1.

66

6.

24

5.

00

6.

93

1.

25

7.7

7

6.8

9

8.0

5

2.6

6

0.

10

0.

00

0.

10

0.

09

0.

62

0.

50

0.

69

0.

12

1.

00

0.

88

1.

03

0.

34

Notes:Azero(0.00)

meansthatagivencountryisnotrepresentedwithanyuniversityinth

egivenrangeofranks.

Sources:Owncalculationsbasedondatafrom

Institute

ofHigherEducation,ShanghaiJiao

TongUniversity(2008a),QSLtd(2008),UnitedNationsPopulation

Division(2

008a).



47/225

An excuse for the relatively weak position of European universities in thisranking is sometimes suggested to be that much of science research iscarried out in Europe outside the universities, e.g. in Germany by insti-

tutes of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German ResearchFoundation) and by Max Planck institutes, or in France by the institutesof the Centre national pour la recherche scientifique.

If indeed public research in the US would be more concentratedin universities, then the research achievements of that research wouldboost the performance of universities. Table 2.3, however, shows that thisis not the case.

Table 2.3 Ratio higher education/ other public research

1981 1991 2001

USEU15

0.6

1.0

0.7

1.1

1.1

1.6

Sources: see appendix 2.1

Europe (the EU 15) actually holds a higher proportion of university/other

public research expenditures, where both Europe and the US show arapid growth in that ratio.In other words: it is not the structure of public research which favours

US universities. But as appendix 2.1 substantiates research expendi-tures in the US are substantially higher and so despite the fact thatuniversity expenditures as a percentage of the total of research expendi-tures are smaller in the US than in Europe total university researchexpenditures are more or less the same (about 100 per capita in the EU15as in the US).

Lets continue this analysis on the level of individual countries. Table2.4 shows the R&D expenditure going to the higher education sector asa total and as a percentage of the total of R&D expenditure in the country.It is clear by juxtaposing this table to the Jiao Tong ranking and correctingfor population size of table 2.2 that the relationship between the propor-tion of research expenditures of the university sector on the one hand andpresence as a country in the top echelons of Jiao Tong is weak. WhileGermany could be used as a point to illustrate the hypothesis, the USattests to the contrary in terms of the relationship between the percentageof R&D expenditure going to the higher education sector and the repre-sentation in the Jiao Tong ranking. This implies that other factors are atplay, like the size of R&D expenditure in the higher education sector, itsdistribution and concentration among universities, and the efficiency ingenerating research output.



48/225

Table 2.4 R&D expenditure going to HE sector, EU and selected countries, 2005

Country/Region Mio

LithuaniaTurkeyGreeceEstoniaLatviaCyprusPortugalCroatiaPoland

NorwayItalySpainNetherlandsMaltaIrelandUnited KingdomHungaryAustriaDenmarkBelgiumEU27

EU15IcelandSwedenSlovakiaFinlandFranceSloveniaGermany (incl. ex-GDR from 1991)Czech RepublicUnited StatesRomaniaJapan

BulgariaChina (excl. Hong Kong)Russian FederationLuxembourg (Grand-Duch)

85.757

1,248.994

547.720

43.096

29.494

21.508

425.187

108.083

437.559

1,135.7314,711.700

2,959.928

2,457.000

7.843

550.000

8,160.427

210.626

1,483.778

1,254.442

1,238.842

44,452.848

43,213.55479.846

2,333.499

39.690

1,042.100

6,820.731

69.149

9,221.100

231.934

36,838.679

44.682

16,330.413

11.1592,376.579

379.045

7.100

54.6%

54.6%

47.5%

41.4%

40.6%

38.9%

35.4%

34.6%

31.6%

30.7%30.2%

29.0%

27.8%

27.4%

27.1%

25.7%

25.1%

24.8%

24.6%

22.3%

22.1%

22.0%22.0%

20.9%

20.4%

19.0%

18.8%

16.7%

16.5%

16.4%

14.1%

13.7%

13.4%

10.5%9.9%

5.8%

1.5%

Source: Eurostat (2009)

%

The most widely used rankings Jiao Tong and THES were tested on theirrobustness by Saisana and DHombres (2008) by juxtaposing the JiaoTong Top 100 and THES Top 200 ranking for 88 universities for whichboth ranks were available. Only 0.5% of all the European universities (24universities) are among the 88 universities of the world which appear inboth rankings indeed were included in this group. The authors criterionfor robustness is the correspondence between the two ranks. Of course,that correspondence is rather weak as Jiao Tong measures research per-



49/225

formance in the sciences only, while THES includes education qualityand is in many of the underlying variables highly biased towards Britishinstitutions.

The relevance of the rankings as an indicator of value added achievedin university education in the different universities in different countriesis limited. But that is not what they aim to achieve, contrary to what thevast number of critics of these rankings purport. The THES ranking isabout certain indicators of the perceptionof quality as well as certainindicators of proxies of quality (attractiveness to international staff andstudents). The Jiao Tong ranking is about achievements in science re-search. No more and no less.

Yet, the message of these rankings for Europe is clear: European uni-

versities can do better. They also should do better if Europe wants to bethat thriving continent it purported to be in the Lisbon declaration.Winckler (2008, p. 69) supplements the Jiao Tong information with

the ranking of individual researchers according to citations presentedin Table 2.5 5. The US and Europe dominate the world scene with Europealmost on par with the US in the Top 20 but with a much broader basefor the US in the Top 200. Correcting for population size it is obviousthat the US performs much better.

Table 2.5 Ranking of the Individual Researchers in the Sciences

Mathematics Physics Molecular Biology

Top20

Top100

Top200

Top20

Top100

Top200

Top20

Top100

Top200

USUKOther EuropeOther

10271

6610186

136163216

8165

5010328

101155133

10-7-

1005

173

200103511

Total 20 100 200 20 100 200 20 100 200

Source: Winckler (2008, p. 69)

Bonacconi (2005) shows that the first ten institutions at Masters andPhD level were all in the US for the Top 1000 scientists in computerscience.

Europe also lags behind in economics. There are only five Europeandepartments in the Worlds Top 50 (ranked by citations), and all but one(Copenhagen) are in the UK (Coup, 2003). Drze and Estevan (2006)argue that the US output (Nobel Laureates, Fellows of the EconometricSociety, publications, citations) amounts to between two and five timesEuropean output. He also draws attention to the huge differences in Eu-rope between different countries on the scale of publications/authors and



50/225

population size. The UK comes out on top, followed on a short distanceby the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (Lubrano et. al., 2003, p. 1378,Table 4). The laggards are the Big Four with France on place 10, Spain

on 11, Italy on 13 and Germany on 14. Drze and Estevan make the pointthat the Small Seven (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Nether-lands, Norway and Sweden) do very well, even when compared to the UK(with the same population as the S7) and definitively when compared tothe Big 4 (with four times the population of the S7).In other areas of the social sciences, the humanities, the fundamentalsof law (metajuridica) and the arts, no comparisons are available betweenEuropean universities performance and that elsewhere, nor are theyavailable among European universities. Yet, it would not come as a sur-

prise if US universities dominated in particular in the top whatever thefield of research is while within Europe, the universities of the UK andthose of the S7 were far ahead of those of other countries if populationsize is taken into account.

The THES and Jiao Tong rankings will undoubtedly be improved.Several developments are recognized: The OECD AHELO project (Nusche, 2008) attempts to measure

learning outcomes of universities much along the same lines as theProject International Student Achievement (PISA) has done for 15

year olds now in more than 50 countries in 2006, after an earlier startwith a more limited number of countries in 2000 and 2003. TheAHELO project is likely to have a similar effect on university policyas PISA has had (see Hopkins et. al., 2007), i.e. it will create a public(and media) outcry in those countries which have beenunderperforming and thus stimulate improvement.

The Center for University Development (CHE)/Zentrum frHochschulentwicklung has published rankings of undergraduateprogrammes for years for Germany. Among experts, there is a broadconsensus that the ranking methodology of CHE is much better thanthose of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking and the THES ranking. CHEdoes not rank institutions, but subject areas, taught in departments.Within Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the authority of theserankings is undisputed, and students use their results massively. InDecember 2007, CHE presented the first Excellence Ranking ofEuropean Graduate Programmes in Natural Sciences.

Most rankings up to now deal with (the top of) the European researchuniversities, while non-research universities might also benefit froma cross-border comparison of accomplishments. It is likely that this

will happen in the future, through the AHELO project.The EU is likely to promote a classification of higher education institu-tions much like the Carnegie classification in the US in order to promotedifferentiation in European university education (Van Vught, 2009). Itis also likely that the research intensiveness will be an important differ-



51/225

entiating indicator as will be the percentage of staff with a PhD involvedin (undergraduate) education. Such a classification would be most help-ful for non-research universities and universities with few PhDs in un-

dergraduate education to excel in their own league.The top 20 European universities of Jiao Tong [latest year, so far 2008,might be 2009 by the time closer to publication] and THES 2008 arelisted in Tables 2.6 and 2.7.

Table 2.6 Top 20 European Universities Part I (Shanghai Jiao Tong Ranking,

2006)Regional

RankInstitution World

RankCountry National

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Univ CambridgeUniv OxfordImperial Coll LondonUniv Coll LondonSwiss Fed Inst Tech ZurichUniv UtrechtUniv Paris 06Karolinska Inst Stickholm

Univ ManchesterUniv MunichUniv EdinburghTech Univ MunichUniv CopenhagenUniv ZurichUniv BristolUniv Paris 11Uppsala UnivUniv HeidelbergUniv OsloUniv Sheffield

2

10

23

26

27

40

45

48

50

51

52

54

56

58

62

64

65

66

68

69

UKUKUKUKSwitzerlandNetherlandsFranceSweden

UKGermanyUKGermanyDenmarkSwitzerlandUKFranceSwedenGermanyNorwayUK

1

2

3

4

1

1

1

1

5

1

6

2

1

2

7

2

2

3

1

8

Source: Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2008a)



52/225

Table

2.7

Top20

EuropeanUniversities1)PartII(THESRanking,2008)

Scores

RegionalRank

WorldRank

Institution

Country

PeerReview

EmployerReview

Staff/Student

Citations/Staff

InternationalStaff

InternationalStudents

Overall

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3 4 6 722

23

24

28

29

32

34

2)

48

49

50

53

57

63

64

66

67

U

niversityofCambridge

U

niversityofOxford

ImperialCollegeLondon

U

niversityCollegeLondon

K

ingsCollegeLondon

U

niversityofEdinburgh

E

THZurich(SwissFederalInstituteofTechnology)

E

coleNormaleSuprieur,Paris

U

niversityofManchester

U

niversityofBristol

E

colePolytechnique

U

niversityofCopenhagen

T

rinityCollegeDublin

E

colePolytechniqueFdraledeLausanne

U

niversityofAmsterdam

H

eidelbergUniversity

U

ppsalaUniversity

L

eidenUniversity

L

ondonSchoolofEconomics

U

trechtUniversity

UKUKUKUKUKUKSwitzerland

France

UKUKFrance

Denmark

Ireland

Switzerland

Netherlands

Germany

Sweden

Netherlands

UKNetherlands

100

100

99

96

93

96

95

93

91

83

80

88

90

63

88

87

91

87

88

89

100

100

100

99

98

99

82

72

100

99

96

59

96

71

77

59

60

61

100

66

99

100

100

100

89

82

56

68

82

82

100

100

68

93

80

81

43

35

59

62

89

85

83

89

70

70

99

99

56

74

58

45

42

77

61

58

85

97

26

72

98

96

98

96

91

91

100

29

91

85

62

67

99

100

73

54

70

74

100

45

95

96

100

100

85

82

94

69

84

74

93

69

76

100

32

81

41

41

100

24

99

.5

98

.9

98

.4

98

.1

89

.5

89

.3

89

.1

84

.8

84

.4

84

.1

83

.0

78

.5

78

.2

78

.1

78

.0

76

.9

74

.9

74

.8

74

.2

74

.0

Notes:1)Universities

inEUandEFTAcountries;2)Place

34issharedwithUniversityofBritishColumbia,Canada

Source:QSLtd(200

8)



53/225

The lists of Table 2.6 and 2.7 contain a disproportionately large group ofold universities, established centuries ago. At the same time, being oldand established in the (late) middle ages is not a sufficient nor a necessary

condition; of the 500 or so universities established before 1650 most

Documents

A Chance for European Universities