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

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 ( ), 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, MP Australian 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, MP Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 20 February 2008 Policy has changed dramatically…why?

8 Australia’s top 20 exports 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?

13 Concentration of resources – a favoured strategy China Project – 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 2 nd ) up from 5.1% in 2001 (world rank 5 th ) 50 th – world rank (2006) for citations per paper

14 Shanghai Index Top 500 – Publications 2003 and 2008

15 Shanghai Top 500 – Hi-Ci Researchers 2003 and 2008

16 Profile of a leading university* * Sowter, 2008

17 Budget (2006) – leading US and Australian universities InstitutionTotal enrolmentsBudget ($US)$US per enrolment Harvard University20,042$3,000,000,000$149,685 Princeton university7,145$1,109,490,000$152,282 Yale University11,358$1,960,000,000$172,565 Stanford University14,945$3,400,000,000$227,500 University of Pennsylvania23,980$5,180,000,000$216,013 Australian National University 11,357$850,000,000$74,843 University of Melbourne34,000$1,240,000,000$36,470

18 Small nations: Highly Cited researchers and Nobel Laureates ( ) NationHighly Cited ResearchersNobel Prize winners Australia11110 Belgium389 Denmark3114 Finland173 The Netherlands9818 Norway1410 Sweden6128 Switzerland11325 Harvard University – 187 HiCis MIT – 72 Nobel prizes (current or former members)

19 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 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?

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?