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
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
2
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
3
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
4
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
5
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)
UiTM April 2, 2007
6
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
7
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
8
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: < 50%
 Number of external comparative
assessments for professorial recruitment and
promotion: 10 to 12
UiTM April 2, 2007
9
Levels of Selectivity for US
Colleges (Barron)
Selectivity SAT
GPA
%
FreshTier
(Test) (Grade) accepted men (N)
I (n = 146) >1240 >B
<50
170 000
II (253)
>1146 >B-
50-75
300 000
III (588)
>1000 >C
75-85
570 000
IV (429)
<1000 <C
>85
325 000
UiTM April 2, 2007
10
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
11
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
12
Funding and Excellence
 Funding is important, but funding isn‘t
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
13
Research Funding in USA: External
Research Grants and Overhead
University
(Top 5)
U Washington
External Funds
FY ‘03 (Mio $)
565.6
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%
12.5%
13.1%
51.8%
n/a 14
Top 100
All universities
20 044.7
24 734.0
UiTM April 2, 2007
Increase
OverFY ’02>’03 head
16.1%
51.6%
Selected University Endowments:
Market Value, Returns, Growth
University
Market Value Return
Growth (%)
2004, Mio $ 2004 (%) 2003 > 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%
22
n/a
8.5%
SF State U
UiTM April 2, 2007
15
University Budget: Revenue
(Stanford University, 2005/06)
Source
Amount (Mio $) % of revenue
Student fees (inc.
513.3
room and board)
Research funds (direct 1 086.1
& indirect cost)
Return on investment
584.2
17.6%
Hospital
295.4
10.1%
Other (Donations,
Patent, Fees)
Total
443.4
15.2%
2 922.4
UiTM April 2, 2007
37.2%
20.0%
100
16
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 competition’s sake
UiTM April 2, 2007
17
Admissions Data for the 146 Most
Selective Colleges in the USA
Social class (by
income)
Admissions (N)
Lowest income
quartile
5 000
Admits as % of
each population
(vs. normal distrib.)
3 % (25 %)
Highest income
quartile
125 000
74 % (25 %)
Total admissions
170 000
100 %
UiTM April 2, 2007
18
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
19
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
UiTM April 2, 2007
20
For further discussion:
[email protected]
For further texts:
www.stanford.edu/people/weiler
UiTM April 2, 2007
21