Finnish Higher Education in International Perspective Kari Raivio Chancellor emeritus, University of Helsinki CES-seminaari

Capacity building as a national strategy Competitiveness in knowledge economy depends on: – Well-educated workforce – Research base to foster innovation – Enlightened population Focus on universities - why? – Achieving an edge in skills and competencies of workforce – Training teachers for the education chain – Training researchers – Research excellence to out-innovate competitors – Ranking lists UNIVERSITIES – INSTRUMENTS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY!

Higher education attainment and economic success (OECD 2010)

How to make EU the leading knowledge-based economy ? (Modified Lisbon agenda, 2004) Realization of Knowledge Society – Recruit top research talent – Minimize bureaucracy – Modernize universities – Industry-academia (Ideopolis) R&D first priority – Public/private investment (at least 3% of GDP) – Tax relief – ERC/EIT – Public procurement

Capacity building is a long-term project CASE FINLAND Law in late 19th century: to marry you have to be able to read! Comprehensive school reform in s (primary- secondary) Teacher training in universities (Master´s degree) Response to severe economic crisis in early 1990s: – Increased investment in R & D New university law – Autonomy – Legal status

Problems in lobbying for HE and R&D policy Targets are almost exclusively input-related – Investment (% GDP) – Cohort participation rate – Attainment levels Outputs difficult to measure – Learning outcomes – Research achievement Impact even more difficult to assess – and takes time! – Innovation system – economic progress – Human wellbeing FAITH!

Tertiary educational attainment of EU countries compared to 2020 target

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

Money alone does not buy results Correlation of PISA performance with expenditure

Correlation of PISA scores with expenditure

R&D investments in some countries Sources: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators and Statistics Finland DM 36109, and Percentage of GDP

Comparison of economic wealth and scientific impact (King: Nature 15. July 2004)

SHARE OF 1% OF MOST HIGHLY CITED PUBLICATIONS USA62.8 UK12.8 GERMANY10.4 JAPAN 6.9 FRANCE 6.9 CANADA 5.8 ITALY 4.3 SWITZERLAND 4.1 NETHERLANDS 3.8 AUSTRALIA2.8 SWEDEN2.5 SPAIN2.1 BELGIUM1.7 DENMARK1.5 ISRAEL1.5 RUSSIA1.3 FINLAND1.1 AUSTRIA1.0

GLOBAL RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES (TOP 10 IN 2011) 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

Nations with universities among top 100 ARWU (Shanghai) USA53 UK10 Germany 6 Japan 5 Canada, Australia, Switzerland 4 France, Sweden 3 Denmark, Netherlands 2 Belgium, Finland, Israel, Norway, Russia 1 T.H.E. World University Ranking USA51 UK12 Canada 5 Australia, Germany, Netherlands, China 4 France, Sweden, Switzerland 3 Japan, Korea 2 Belgium, Finland, Singapore 1

WHY ARE U.S. UNIVERSITIES SO DOMINANT? Genetic advantage – NO Better researcher training – NO Differentiation of functions - YES Better funding – YES ! Recruitment of postdocs – Yes Recruitment of top scientists – Yes Pursuit of excellence - Yes – Competition – Career development – Rewards

MONEY COUNTS – NOT % GDP R & D FUNDING 2003 (OECD, bn $ PPP) USA284.6 JAPAN114.0 GERMANY 57.0 FRANCE 37.5 UK 33.6 KOREA 24.4 CANADA 19.3 ITALY 17.7 SPAIN11.0 SWEDEN10.4 AUSTRALIA 9.1 HOLLAND 8.8 BELGIUM 7.6 AUSTRIA 6.4 SWITZERLAND 5.6 FINLAND 5.2

Research achievement – Nobel prizes ( ) CountryPhysiol/MedicPhysicsChemistryTotal USA UK Japan France Germany Israel Australia Russia Sweden Switzerland China

Proportion of international university students by country (%)

DILEMMAS OF UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE (and elsewhere?) Lack of realistic institutional profiling Decreasing public funding Meager sources of external R & D funding Tuition income low (or zero) Endowments insignificant Private capital flow low Commercial activities limited Civil servant attitude

Conclusions Small countries very efficient on a per capita basis – Publications – Citations – Patents Financial and intellectual resources limit breadth of science – Concentrate resources through competition – Find special advantages – Collaborate Concentrate on QUALITY! Do not separate basic research from higher education Collateral benefits of capacity building

Capacity building allows pursuit of happiness