3rd International Symposium on University Rankings University of Leiden, February 6-7, 2009

Moving beyond university rankings:developing world class university systems

Tony SheilSenior Manager, Research Policy & Strategy

Griffith University, Australia

2

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

Named in honour of Sir Samuel Griffith (1845-1920), first Chief Justice of Australia

3

Research Quality Assessment Exercise

proposed

Along came Shanghai Jiao Tong!

Thomson Web of Science

4

“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

5

“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

6

“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, MPAustralian Minister for Education, Science & Training

August 30, 2007

7

“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, MPDeputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations20 February 2008

Policy has changed dramatically…why?

8

Australia’s top 20 exports 2007-08 financial year ($ millions)

9

International students as a percentage of tertiary type A enrolments (selected OECD countries), 2006

10

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 research-intensive 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).

11

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.

12

The fastest mover on the Shanghai index?

Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityThomson ISI Outputs 1997-2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Th

om

son

IS

I O

utp

uts

13

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

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351 401 451 501

World Rank

Sco

re f

or

Pu

bli

cati

on

s

2003

2008

Shanghai Index Top 500 – Publications 2003 and 2008

15

Shanghai Top 500 – Hi-Ci Researchers 2003 and 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351 401 451 501

World Rank

Sco

re f

or

HiC

is

2003

2008

16

Profile of a leading university*

* Sowter, 2008

17

Budget (2006) – leading US and Australian universities

Institution Total enrolments Budget ($US) $US per enrolment

Harvard University 20,042 $3,000,000,000 $149,685

Princeton university 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

18

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 HiCisMIT – 72 Nobel prizes (current or former members)

19

Figure 6: Hi-Ci researchers per 1% of World GDP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Highly Cited researchers and economic wealth

20

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)

Highly Cited researchers usually form clusters

21

“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

22

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 one-dimensional vice of university rankings. Improved university classifications and benchmarking are needed to develop a more sophisticated understanding of available approaches to university development.

23

Then we can address the important strategic issuesWhat 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?

24

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 mid-career 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 national capability in 154 Fields of Research.

25

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.

Conclusion

26

Questions and discussion?