Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | phyllis-warren |
View: | 23 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Building Academic Excellence in Malaysia: Perspectives from an International Campus
Christine Ennew
Provost and CEO, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
Some generic context
• World Class versus Excellence– What is the right sort of aspiration?– There will always be a limited number of “”world class”
universities and they are likely to be dominantly defined in terms of research outputs
– Excellence is both more inclusive and more adaptable to purpose (but more difficult to measure and validate)
• Institution versus (eco) system– Where does control and responsibility lie?– Is the (eco) system the underlying foundation or can institutions
be excellent/world class despite the (eco) system?– Intuition and evidence say it’s both
The system does matter! (System Score and Reputation (a))
• QS – country’s share of Top 200
• Better system associated with more universities in Top 200
• Affected by system size
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.0000
5
10
15
20
25
30
Relationship between system score and reputation
Overall Score
Exponential (Overall Score)
Exponential (Overall Score)
Exponential (Overall Score)
System Score
% o
f to
p 2
00 f
rom
Co
un
try
SG
US
GER
AUS
UK
HKCh
SWIMY, KSA, IN IND
But system doesn’t fully determine performance
(System Score and Reputation (b))
• QS – share of country’s universities in Top 200
• Not affected by system size
• Positive link but more variability
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.0000.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Relationship between system score and reputation
Overall Score
Exponential (Overall Score)
Exponential (Overall Score)
Exponential (Overall Score)
System Score
% o
f U
niv
ersi
ties
in
To
p 2
00
SG
MY, KSA, IN IND
US
GER
AUSUK
HK
CH
SWI
The International Campus Perspective
• Building academic excellence or reproducing academic excellence?• Challenges of a different system• UK – private institutions with significant public funding (both core
and competitive) and significant philanthropy• Malaysia – private institution wholly funded by teaching, no formal
FEC for competitive research funding• UK – relatively light touch QA regime with significant institutional
autonomy (but regular audit)• Malaysia – even with self accrediting status, there is much greater
degree of bureaucracy surrounding academic operations (with associated costs)
• UK degree awarding powers overseen by two regulatory processes!
Talent• Staff
– Good mix of domestic and international – some diaspora
– Reputation is an attractor– Research support is a disincentive– Attracting research leaders– Creating a post-doc culture
• Students– Highly qualified students, highly employable
graduates– Impact of visas on international talent– Graduate stud%+
• Operating in English is an enabling factor
Resources• Financial Resources• Research
– Competitive research funding regime– Only funds direct costs for PHEIs– Stronger focus on applied as opposed
to fundamental research– Restrictions on applicants and grants
held• Philanthropy
– The legacy of newness• Research informs teaching and
teaching income contributes to research
Governance• Institutional Governance
– Robust but supportive – as in UK• JV Board Governance
– UoN and Partner, but largely focuses on the “business” (financial, legal, risk)
• System Governance– Private institutions have greater flexibility
than public– Regulatory processes are time
consuming, often duplicate and heavily rule based
– Domestic benchmarking could be more effective for both teaching and research