The Price of Excellence: Comparative Perspectives on Competitive Higher Education

1
The Price of Excellence Comparative Perspectives
on Competitive Higher Education

• Luncheon Address at the
• Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM),
• Shah Allam/Selangor, Malaysia,
• April 2, 2007
• Professor Hans N. Weiler
• Stanford University

2
My points of reference

• Stanford University/USA An established
  university that has achieved excellence
• Viadrina European University (Frankfurt/Oder
  Germany) A new university that strives for
  excellence
• Higher education in India A system of higher
  education entering the international competition
  for excellence

3
The Quest for Excellence in Higher Education

• Excellence initiatives (Germany, India, etc.)
• International rankings of excellence (league
  tables)
• Quest for excellence is not surprising
• Excellence is indispensable
• Excellence is socially responsible
• Excellence is economical

4
Excellence Means Competition

• Excellence needs to be established and validated
  in relation to competitors
• Competition in higher education
• Competition for good students
• Competition for good scholars
• Competition for funds
• Competition for recognition
• Internal and external competition
• Competition has become globalized

5
The Measurement of Excellence

• Reputational measures
• Students, alumni, faculty, scientific community
• Objective measures
• Research output, research funding, completion
  rates, placement of graduates, no. of PhDs, size
  of library, faculty honors
• Social measures
• Representation of different ethnic and social
  groups and of women among student staff
• The convergence of different measures

6
The Competitive University and the Prerequisites
of Excellence

• Outstanding quality of research and teaching
• A clear and unmistakable institutional profile
  with priorities and posteriorities
• Institutional autonomy and independence
• (Funding A relative prerequisite)

7
How Prerequisites of Excellence Hang Together

• Quality requires a clear institutional profile
  One cannot be excellent in everything
• Autonomy requires quality Societies cannot grant
  autonomy to mediocre institutions
• A clear institutional profile requires autonomy
  Identity can only flourish in independent
  institutions

8
Quality

• Quality requires selectivity
• Students
• Staff
• Leadership
• The most critical dimension of university
  quality Staff recruitment, retention, and
  promotion
• Quality can be, and needs to be, managed
• Assessment, evaluation, incentives, penalties

9
Indicators of Selectivity (Stanford)

• Undergraduate Admissions (2004)
• Applicants 19 172
• Admitted 2 486 ( 13)
• Enrolled 1 648 (52 male, 48 female)
• Graduated after 5 years 90.1 (1999)
• Graduate Admissions (PhD) 5 15 of applicants
• Assistant Professors receiving tenure lt 50
• Number of external comparative assessments for
  professorial recruitment and promotion 10 to 12

10
Levels of Selectivity for US Colleges (Barron)
Selectivity Tier SAT (Test) GPA (Grade) accepted Fresh-men (N)
I (n 146) gt1240 gtB lt50 170 000
II (253) gt1146 gtB- 50-75 300 000
III (588) gt1000 gtC 75-85 570 000
IV (429) lt1000 ltC gt85 325 000
11
Profile

• No university can be good at everything
• Profile means priorities AND posteriorities
  Strengthen strengths and eliminate weaknesses
• Too much breadth begets mediocrity
• The sharpening of an institutional profile can go
  too far The need for lateral connections

12
Autonomy

• Universities need and deserve autonomy
• Threats to autonomy from without and from within
• From without Bureaucratic intervention by the
  state and agenda-setting intervention by sponsors
• From within The tension between individual
  autonomy and institutional autonomy
• Autonomy and accountability Two sides of the
  same coin

13
Funding and Excellence

• Funding is important, but funding isnt
  everything
• If funding is limited (and it always is), it is
  better to do fewer things well than do everything
  poorly
• The critical importance of research funding
• Seed grants, indirect costs (overhead)
• The ultimate guarantee of autonomy Endowment
  funding of universities

14
Research Funding in USA External Research Grants
and Overhead
University (Top 5) External Funds FY 03 (Mio ) Increase FY 02gt03 Over-head
U Washington 565.6 16.1 51.6
Johns Hopkins 525.0 8.3 64.0
U Michigan 516.8 16.3 53.0
Stanford 483.5 13.3 56.0
UCLA 421.2 14.8 54.5
Top 100 20 044.7 12.5 51.8
All universities 24 734.0 13.1 n/a
15
Selected University Endowments Market Value,
Returns, Growth
University Market Value 2004, Mio Return 2004 () Growth () 2003 gt 2004
Harvard 22 144 21.1 17.5
Texas 10 337 20.1 18.7
Stanford 9 922 18.0 15.2
Villanova 207 n/a 18.6
SF State U 22 n/a 8.5
16
University Budget Revenue (Stanford University,
2005/06)
Source Amount (Mio ) of revenue
Student fees (inc. room and board) 513.3 17.6
Research funds (direct indirect cost) 1 086.1 37.2
Return on investment 584.2 20.0
Hospital 295.4 10.1
Other (Donations, Patent, Fees) 443.4 15.2
Total 2 922.4 100
17
The Hazards of Competition

• Aggravating social cleavages
• Neglecting the need for a broad-based education
  (the excellence-expansion quandary)
• The danger of commercializing the university in
  the quest for funding (contracts, patents,
  fundraising, sports)
• Competition for competitions sake

18
Admissions Data for the 146 Most Selective
Colleges in the USA
Social class (by income) Admissions (N) Admits as of each population (vs. normal distrib.)
Lowest income quartile 5 000 3 (25 )
Highest income quartile 125 000 74 (25 )
Total admissions 170 000 100
19
Partners for Excellence

• Cooperation among universities Competition does
  not preclude cooperation
• Cooperation between universities and business
  Proximity and affinity
• International cooperation The role of foreign
  talent
• The ambivalent role of privatization Flexibility
  vs. dependence and the erosion of standards

20
Concluding Remarks

• Competition is both unavoidable and conducive to
  academic excellence
• Excellence needs to be based on both teaching and
  research, but research remains dominant
• The quest for excellence has an international
  frame of reference
• The competition in higher education is not asleep

21
For further discussionweiler_at_stanford.eduFor
further textswww.stanford.edu/people/weiler