1 / 24

Finnish H igher E ducation in International P erspective

Finnish H igher E ducation in International P erspective. Kari Raivio Chancellor emeritus, University of Helsinki CES-seminaari 19.6.2013. Capacity building as a national strategy. Competitiveness in knowledge economy depends on: Well-educated workforce

loc
Télécharger la présentation

Finnish H igher E ducation in International P erspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FinnishHigherEducation in International Perspective Kari Raivio Chancellor emeritus, University of Helsinki CES-seminaari 19.6.2013

  2. Capacitybuilding as a national strategy • Competitiveness in knowledgeeconomydepends on: • Well-educatedworkforce • Researchbase to fosterinnovation • Enlightenedpopulation • Focus on universities- why? • Achieving an edge in skills and competencies of workforce • Trainingteachers for the educationchain • Trainingresearchers • Researchexcellence to ”out-innovate” competitors • Ranking lists UNIVERSITIES – INSTRUMENTS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY!

  3. Highereducationattainment and economicsuccess(OECD 2010)

  4. How to make EU the leadingknowledge-basedeconomy ?(ModifiedLisbon agenda, 2004) • Realization of ”KnowledgeSociety” • Recruit top researchtalent • Minimizebureaucracy • Modernizeuniversities • Industry-academia (”Ideopolis”) • R&D firstpriority • Public/privateinvestment(at least 3% of GDP) • Taxrelief • ERC/EIT • Public procurement

  5. Capacitybuilding is a long-termprojectCASE FINLAND • Law in late 19th century: to marryyouhave to beable to read! • Comprehensiveschoolreform in 1960-70s (primary-secondary) • Teachertraining in universities (Master´sdegree) • Response to severeeconomiccrisis in early 1990s: • Increasedinvestment in R & D • New universitylaw 1.1.2010 • Autonomy • Legal status

  6. Problems in lobbying for HE and R&D policy • Targetsarealmostexclusivelyinput-related • Investment (% GDP) • Cohortparticipationrate • Attainmentlevels • Outputsdifficult to measure • Learningoutcomes • Researchachievement • Impactevenmoredifficult to assess – and takestime! • Innovationsystem – economicprogress • Human wellbeing FAITH!

  7. Tertiaryeducationalattainment of EU countriescompared to 2020 target

  8. National expenditure per student in relation to GDP per capita (2010)

  9. Money alonedoesnotbuyresultsCorrelation of PISA performancewithexpenditure

  10. Correlation of PISA scoreswithexpenditure

  11. R&D investments in some countries Percentage of GDP 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Sources: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators and Statistics Finland DM 36109, 36054 and 218475

  12. Comparison of economicwealth and scientificimpact(King: Nature 15. July 2004)

  13. USA 62.8 UK 12.8 GERMANY 10.4 JAPAN 6.9 FRANCE 6.9 CANADA 5.8 ITALY 4.3 SWITZERLAND 4.1 NETHERLANDS 3.8 AUSTRALIA 2.8 SWEDEN 2.5 SPAIN 2.1 BELGIUM 1.7 DENMARK 1.5 ISRAEL 1.5 RUSSIA 1.3 FINLAND 1.1 AUSTRIA 1.0 SHARE OF 1% OF MOST HIGHLY CITED PUBLICATIONS 1997-2001

  14. HARVARD STANFORD MIT UC BERKELEY CAMBRIDGE CALTECH PRINCETON COLUMBIA U CHICAGO OXFORD (U. HELSINKI 74.) ARWU (SHANGHAI) CALTECH HARVARD STANFORD OXFORD PRINCETON CAMBRIDGE MIT IMPERIAL COLLEGE U CHICAGO UC BERKELEY (U. HELSINKI 91.) T.H.E. WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS GLOBAL RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES (TOP 10 IN 2011)

  15. Nationswithuniversitiesamong top 100 ARWU (Shanghai) T.H.E. World University Ranking USA 51 UK 12 Canada 5 Australia, Germany, Netherlands, China 4 France, Sweden, Switzerland 3 Japan, Korea 2 Belgium, Finland, Singapore 1 • USA 53 • UK 10 • Germany 6 • Japan 5 • Canada, Australia, Switzerland 4 • France, Sweden 3 • Denmark, Netherlands 2 • Belgium, Finland, Israel, Norway, Russia 1

  16. WHY ARE U.S. UNIVERSITIES SO DOMINANT? • Geneticadvantage – NO • Betterresearchertraining – NO • Differentiation of functions - YES • Betterfunding – YES ! • Recruitment of postdocs – Yes • Recruitment of top scientists – Yes • ”Pursuit of excellence” - Yes • Competition • Careerdevelopment • Rewards

  17. USA 284.6 JAPAN 114.0 GERMANY 57.0 FRANCE 37.5 UK 33.6 KOREA 24.4 CANADA 19.3 ITALY 17.7 SPAIN 11.0 SWEDEN 10.4 AUSTRALIA 9.1 HOLLAND 8.8 BELGIUM 7.6 AUSTRIA 6.4 SWITZERLAND 5.6 FINLAND 5.2 MONEY COUNTS – NOT % GDP R & D FUNDING 2003(OECD, bn $ PPP)

  18. Researchachievement – Nobel prizes(2000 - 2012)

  19. Proportion of international universitystudentsby country (%)

  20. DILEMMAS OF UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE (and elsewhere?) • Lack of realisticinstitutionalprofiling • Decreasingpublicfunding • Meagersources of external R & D funding • Tuitionincomelow (orzero) • Endowmentsinsignificant • Private capital flowlow • Commercial activitieslimited • ”Civilservantattitude”

  21. Conclusions • Small countriesveryefficient on a per capitabasis • Publications • Citations • Patents • Financial and intellectualresourceslimitbreadth of science • Concentrateresourcesthroughcompetition • Findspecialadvantages • Collaborate • Concentrate on QUALITY! • Donotseparatebasicresearchfromhighereducation • Collateralbenefits of capacitybuilding

  22. Capacitybuildingallows pursuit of happiness

More Related