download

Times HigHer educaTion100 UNDER 502014

CONTENTSONEHUNDREDUNDERFIFTYThe young universities celebrated in the 100 Under 50 are bullish:theyhavenofear of the future or of older rivals, says Phil BatyWave of confidenceNo baggageThe youngsters on the moveare unencumbered by history 6Hothouse powers100 Under 50 revealed 11It takes all sortsThe next generation is notablefor its diversity 14Calibrated scalesThe methodologyexplained 18Growth strategy‘Young ones’ shouldn’t be afraid –butshould put apremium on quality 20To boldly goHowPlymouth is living up to its‘enterprise’ billing 22Delegation exerciseKoç University lets freedom reignto push up standards 24Dallas mavericksFuture is bright for Texas instrumentof instruction 26When Times Higher Education conceived the100 Under 50 in 2011, there was asensethat the ranking was one for the underdog.The average age of the top 100 representativesin the traditional THE World University Rankingsis close to 200 years old. Asia’s top institution, theUniversity of Tokyo, was founded in 1877, whileEurope’snumber one, the University of Oxford, cantrace its origins back to 1096.It is clearthatolder institutions enjoysignificantadvantages in the global rankings: they have hadmuch more time to accumulate property and wealth;they are often part of the fabric of major cities andtrusted custodians of national treasures; they havehadcenturies to developdeepand enduring alumninetworks; and they enjoy rich traditions of scholarship(with reputations to match).The first 100 Under 50, published in 2012, shonealight onanew breed of universities –those thathave managed to attain global pre-eminence in decadesrather than centuries, and those showing greatpromise as potential stars of the future. But it washard to escape the feeling that the young minnowsneeded their own pool to avoid being swallowed bythe more mature sharks.However, in this year’s 100 Under 50 (and theassociated inaugural Times Higher Education YoungUniversities Summit), apalpable sense of confidenceand optimism is apparent among the (relative)newcomers.The leaders of the new generation of institutionsfeatured here are remarkably bullish: happy to competeon equalterms with theold guardand confidentof their ability to thrive in adynamic and diversehigher education sector.Some even see their relative youth not as ahindrancebut as aclear strategic advantage in an uncertainglobal academy that demands bravery,risk-taking and fresh thinking.Anthony Forster,vice-chancellor of the 50-yearoldUniversityofEssex, one of the UK’s“plate-glass”universities, believes it is liberating that his institutionis “unhamperedbythe burden of traditionandhistory”.Way Kuo, president of the City Universityof Hong Kong,saysthatwhile his 30-year-old institutionlacks the “heritage and pedigree” of some,thereisapositiveflip side:itis“unencumbered byoutdated modesofoperation”.Wendy Purcell, vice-chancellor of PlymouthUniversity, which gained its university title asrecently as 1992, sums up the mood pithily with astatement that will resonate with many young institutions:“You don’t need to be old: you just need tobe bold.”This publication –the third THE 100 Under 50–isacelebration of this dynamism, optimism andboldness.Phil Baty is the Times Higher EducationRankings editor.AlAmY1May 2014 Times Higher Education 3

Fired up for the futureYouth need not be adisadvantageinadynamic higher education scene, discovers Phil Baty“Having an impact on the world isnot about tradition and history–it’s about relevance in thecontemporary world,” argues AnthonyForster,vice-chancellor of the Universityof Essex.Essex, aBritish institution celebratingits 50th anniversary this year,hasclimbed seven places to 22nd in theTimes Higher Education 100 Under 502014. It was founded, says Forster,“asauniversity for amodern age”. Whileit competes on the global stage withrivals that have had centuries to accumulateprestige and wealth, Essexbelieves that its relative youth is adistinctadvantage.“Unhampered by the burden oftradition and history, our focus hasalways resolutely been on the future,”adds Forster.The university made an impact onthe world very quickly.In1986, six ofits departments were judged to be outstandingby the UK research assessmentexercise. Today, its socialsciences provision is regarded asamong the best in the country. Lastyear Essex was awarded aprestigiousRegius professorship –anacademichonour bestowed by the Crown that isso rare that only 14 have been createdin the past century (Essex has the onlyone in political science). The institutionalso enjoys some of the highestsatisfaction results recorded by theUK’s National Student Survey.“Wehave always been nonconformist,more daring and more willing toexperiment,” says Forster. “Weembrace rather than shy away fromengagement in controversial issuesand encourage members of our communityto be tenacious, to question thestatus quo and to test conventionalwisdom. Challenging conventions is inour DNA.”This risk-takingapproachtoteachingand research characterises manyinstitutions featured in the100 Under50. While the list was conceived as away to identify the potential stars oftencrowded out of the traditional globalrankings by older, richer, more networkedand more prestigious rivals,many of the world’sleading young universitiesshare Essex’sview that youth6 Times Higher Education 1May 2014need not be a disadvantage in adynamic higher education scene.Alvaro Penteado Crósta, vice-rectorof Brazil’s State University of Campinas,SouthAmerica’sonly representativein the rankings, offers alengthylist of areas where he believes youngerinstitutions such as his have the edgeover theirolder rivals:for starters,theformer canmore successfully maintain“a robust synergy between teachingand research”; they are also more ableto introduce innovations in their curricula,“sometimes mixing traditionaland innovative teaching methods…inways that older institutions may finddifficult to implement”.From Crósta’sSouth American perspective,young institutions also tendto be better at identifying real-worldapplications for their research andgenerally “offer more flexible mechanismsfor interacting with society,including the public, private and thirdsectors. They arealsomoreresponsiveto changing demands.”Paul Wellings, vice-chancellor ofAustralia’s University ofWollongong(33rd in the table), says: “While werightly celebrate the achievements andtraditions of our ancient universities,we should not lose sight of the fact thatmost universities have had autonomyand degree-awarding powers for arelatively short period.“As the THE 100 Under 50 illustrates,some of these have securedglobal recognition.”Sowhat has allowed this precociousbreed to flourish? For Wellings,former vice-chancellor of the UK’sAWorld of youth: breAkdoWn by countryNumber of Highest rankedCountry institutions institution RankuK 14 Lancaster university 10Australia 14 university of Newcastle 28uS 8 university of California, Irvine 7Spain 7 Pompeu Fabra university =13France 6 université Paris-Sud 8Germany 6 universität ulm 16Canada 5 university of Calgary 19taiwan 4 National Sun Yat-Sen university 40Hong Kong 3 Hong Kong university of Science and technology 4Sweden 3 Swedish university of Agricultural Sciences =24Republic of Ireland 3 National university of Ireland, Maynooth =67Portugal 3 university of Minho 75South Korea 2 Pohang university of Science and technology 1Italy 2 university of Milan-Bicocca 21Iran 2 Sharif university of technology 27turkey 2 Bilkent university =31Austria 2 Medical university of Vienna 36Denmark 2 university of SouthernDenmark =37New Zealand 2 university of Waikato =44Finland 2 university of easternFinland 53Switzerland 1 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne 2Singapore 1 Nanyang technological university 5Netherlands 1 Maastricht university 6Brazil 1 State university of Campinas =37Japan 1 university of tsukuba =44Greece 1 university of Crete 48Norway 1 university of tromsø 64Saudi Arabia 1 King Abdulaziz university =71India 1 Indian Institute of technology, Guwahati =87top young institution, Lancaster University(10th), an essential ingredientis an excellent–and loyal –workforce.“First, the staff need to be signedup to the institution’s strategy andpriorities, rather than being fixed ondisciplinary loyalties,”saysWellings.“Second, successful new universitieshave to demonstrate outstandingattraction and retention policies andpractices. The best staff live in a‘seller’smarket’. They need to be certainthat spending part of their careerat anewish university in the processof building its reputation is bothinvigorating and agood use of theirintellectual powers.”Flexible and dynamic infrastructureis also essential, he believes.“Some ancient universities havelarge and historic estates. These canbe adouble-edged sword,” he says.“On one hand they sustain reputationthrough the presence of significantbuildings, beautiful collections andimportant laboratories. On the other,theseare aburdenastheyare expensiveto maintain, are often unsuitablefor contemporary use and can createrestrictions on the mobility of theuniversity’scapital for new uses.“In contrast, new universities canhave greater flexibility and be moreresponsive to regional economiccircumstances and nationalimperatives.”Wollongong, up 10 places in thisyear’srankings, has been particularlysuccessful in leveraging major infrastructurefunding under nationalcompetition, Wellings points out.“Tobesuccessful, universities musthave aclear mechanism to identifypriorities and research strengths, andto position them in the context ofnational priorities and competitivefunding streams. This approach canhave amarked effect on the fabric ofthe institution,” he says.Since 2008, Wollongong has createdan international centre for infrastructureresearch, amajor regionalhealth and medical institute focusedon translational work, an institute toexplore innovative new materials, afacility dedicated to sustainable buildingsand asocial sciences precinctReuteRS

1May 2014 Times Higher Education 7

focused on early years education.“The alignment of coherent nationalpolicies, supportive local governmentand ambitious institutional strategycan transform auniversity and itsresearch capacity,” Wellings says.“The relative rise in the standingof universities in, for example, HongKong, Singapore and South Koreashows the power of this approach.”The success of these areas isstarkly illustrated in the100 Under 50 2014, where allthree feature in the world’s top five.South Korea’sPohang University ofScience and Technology, founded in1986,takes first place, as it hasdoneevery year since the 100 Under 50 waslaunched.Its domestic peer,the KoreaAdvanced Institute of Science andTechnology (established in 1971), isin third position.Sandwiched betweenthe two SouthKorean institutions is Switzerland’sÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale deLausanne. In fourth is the Hong KongUniversity of Scienceand Technology(1991),withfifthspottaken by Singapore’sNanyang Technological University(1991), which has risen fromeighth last year and 16th in 2012.WayKuo is president of the CityUniversity of Hong Kong, joint 17thin the rankings. His six years in officeat the 30-year-old institution havebeen characterised by the sort of“ambitious institutional strategy”Wellings refers to.“As ayoung university, wedonothave the heritage and pedigree ofour sister institutions in other partsof the world,” he says. “This means wecannot rest on ourpastlaurels.But weare also relatively unencumberedby outdated modes of operation andfree from being trapped by the8 Times Higher Education 1May 2014burdens of tradition.”CityU’s mission is to become the“leading professional school in theregion and the world” –with aclearfocus on applied knowledge, Kuo says.“I have worked closely with mycolleagues to focus on modernising themanagement, reforming the curriculum,internationalising the campusand enhancing the reward system tounleash the energy and talent of ourstaff and students to strive for excellence,”hesays.Kuo lists aseries of key initiatives.He says: “Weimplemented the pioneering‘Discovery-enriched Curriculum’to build astrong link betweenlearning and research, nurturing students’innovation and entrepreneurship.We set up an outreach policy torecruit faculty and students from allover the world to create an excitingmulticultural campus environment forteaching and learning. We adopted aperformance-based pay review schemeto reward and promote excellence.And we have adopted aforwardlookingmanagement philosophy tosupport diversity and teamwork as theroots of our dynamism.”The 100 Under 50 is characterisedby diversity.Aswas the case lastyear, eight nations are representedin the top 10 (compared withjust two, the US and the UK, in theWorld University Rankings).While the top five is dominated byEast Asia,the remainderofthe top10is amore Western affair: MaastrichtUniversity in the Netherlands holdssixth spot and the US’ University ofCalifornia, Irvine is seventh (downfrom fifth in 2013). France takes thenext two places, with Université Paris-Sud in eighth (up from 10th)and UniversitéPierre etMarie Curie holdingon to ninth. The final top 10 place isfilled by Lancaster (celebrating its50th anniversary this year), whichmoves up from 14th.In total, there are 29 nations representedinthe 100 Under 50 –onemore than last year, asIndia gains afoothold with the Indian Institute ofTechnology, Guwahati (joint 87th).Founded in1994, it is one of theyoungest institutions in the table.Thebestrepresented countriesarethe UK and Australia (14 institutionseach).The UK’stally has fallen to 14 from18 last year (and 20 in 2012) largelybecause anumber of its leading younginstitutions were founded in 1962 and1963 and therefore are no longereligible for inclusion.This year, the University of York(seventh in 2013) and the Universityof East Anglia (16th) have dropped outbecause of their age.The UK’s representation in therankings will decline dramatically inthe near future for the same reason:the country’s number one in 2014,Lancaster,celebrates its 50th birthdayNaNyaNg TechNological uNiversiTy/alaMyWay Kuo,ciTy uNiversiTy of hoNg KoNgthis year. Two other institutionsfounded in 1964, Essex and theUniversity of Strathclyde (78th), willalso exit the tables in 2015 because oftheir age.Indeed, only two of the UK’s14top100 institutions were founded after the1960s –and both are on the up. Theduo, Plymouth University (risingfrom53rd to joint42nd) and the Universityof Hertfordshire(up 15 places to joint60th), are so-called “post-1992 institutions”,which were allowed toconvert from polytechnics into universitiesafter the Further and HigherEducation Act 1992 became law.Australia’s 14representatives aremuch more diverse than the UK’s interms of age: for example, its top threewere establishedindifferent decades.The country’shighest-ranked institutionis the University of Newcastle,founded in 1965, which occupies 28thplaceinthe table(up from joint40th).Second is the Queensland Universityof Technology (joint 31st), which wasestablished in 1989. Third place istaken by Wollongong (founded in1975).While time’swinged chariot hurriesnear for alarge number of UK representativesin the 100 Under 50, manyof Australia’s more youthful institutionsare secure for the time being.For example, the University ofWestern Sydney, founded in 1989,enters the top 100 in joint 87th place;Charles Darwin University, also 25yearsold, rises from joint 77th to 69th;while the 26-year-old University ofTechnology,Sydney rockets from 83rdlast year to 47th. Age shall not withertheir ranking positions for decades.ForKuo,movementinthe tables isahelpful indicator that can informinstitutional strategy –but the rankingsshould not drive it.“AtCityU,wetakeranking as oneset ofimportant international benchmarksthat offer insight into the progressauniversity is making,” he says.“Weare particularly interested in thecriteria of different rankings, howthese are assessed and the subsequentpatterns of results that we can identify.This information enables us toseewhere we are doing something rightand where improvements are calledfor in order to stay competitive.“Weare mindful that, as with shareprices, auniversity’sranking can riseand fall. At CityU, we take the longtermview,even though we are ayounguniversity.Our goal is long-term, stablegrowth. That means taking arationalapproach to ranking, staying relevantand alert, promoting scholarship andtaking responsibility for our future.”Phil Baty is editor, Times HigherEducation rankings.

Planetary bloomThe universities featured in the 100 Under 50 are spread acrossthe globe, seeded and fed by babybooms, 1960s radicalism,political foresight and avoracious appetite for instruction14 Times Higher Education 1May 2014

Institutions founded after 19801May 2014 Times Higher Education15

Take avirtual tour of our campusonline atutdallas.edu/virtualtour.

#1inTexas.RANKED 1ST INTEXAS AND 15TH WORLDWIDEIN THE TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION TOP 100 UNDER 50utdallas.edu

No legacy issuesBy tweaking THE’s rankings methodology,the 100 Under 50 provides amore accuratereading of the world’sbest young universitiesThe Times Higher Education100 Under 50 uses the same rangeof 13 performance indicators torate institutions as the overarchingWorld University Rankings publishedevery autumn, but with a majordifference: the weighting placed onsubjective indicators of academicprestige has been reduced.That given to our 11 objectiveperformance indicators has beenincreased accordingly, although theweighting of our five headline categoriesremains the same:● Research: volume, income andreputation (30 per cent)● Citations: research influence(30 per cent)● Teaching: the learningenvironment (30 per cent)● International outlook: peopleand research (7.5 per cent)● Industry income: innovation(2.5 per cent).The decision to reduce the reputationweighting was the result of feedbackfrom our “platform group” ofmore than 50 expert advisers fromaround the world.It was argued that older institutionscan expect in general to enjoy greaterglobal prestige based on their longerheritage of excellence. Older universitieshave deeper, wider and moreestablished alumni networks, withgraduates more likely to hold seniorpositions in universities and society atlarge, all of which can bolster theirreputations.It was agreed that an analysis ofyounger institutions, designed toexamine future potential as much ascurrent excellence and to move awayfrom heritage or legacy, should bebased more on hard, objective performanceindicators.Therefore, the weighting given toreputation has been reduced fromathird in the World University Rankingsto just over afifth in the 100 Under50.Research: volume, incomeand reputationThis category is made up of three indicators.First is asimple measure of auniversity’sresearch volume, scaled forinstitutional size, to give asense of itsproductivity.18 Times Higher Education 1May 2014PAUl BATeMANWe count the number of paperspublished in the academic journalsindexed by Thomson Reuters peracademic staff member to give aclearpicture of each institution’s ability toget papers published in quality peerreviewedjournals.This indicator isworth 9per centoverall, up from 6per cent in the WorldUniversity Rankings, reflecting thereduced weight given to the reputationmeasures.This category also looks at universityresearch income, scaled againststaff numbers and normalised forpurchasing-power parity and for eachuniversity’s distinct subject profile.This indicator reflects the fact thatresearch grants in science subjects areoftenbiggerthanthose awardedfor thehighest-qualitysocial science, arts andhumanities research. This indicator isalso weighted at 9per cent, up from6per cent in the World UniversityRankings.The final indicator in this categoryis based on the most recent results ofour annual reputation survey.ThomsonReuters carried out its AcademicReputation Survey –aworldwide pollof experienced scholars –inspring2013 (the 2014 poll has just closedand its data will be used to inform theWorld University Rankings 2014-15,to be published this autumn).The poll examined the perceivedprestige of institutions in both researchand teaching, and the results forresearch are used in this category.There were 10,536 responses, statisticallyrepresentative of global highereducation’s geographical and subjectmix.The research reputation indicatorremains the most dominant measurein this category,despite areduction inits weighting from 18 per cent in theoverarching rankings to 12 percentinthe 100 Under 50 analysis.Citations: research influenceIn this indicator,weexamine auniversity’sresearch influence by capturingthe number of times its published workis citedbyscholars around the world.Worth 30 per cent of the overallscore, this single indicator is thelargest of the 13 employed to createthe table –and its weighting remainsidentical to that employed in the WorldUniversity Rankings.The data are drawn from the12,000 academic journals indexed byThomson Reuters’ WebofSciencedatabase and include all indexedjournals published in the five yearsbetween 2007 and 2011.Citations made in the six yearsbetween 2007 and 2012 are also collected,thus improving the stability ofthe results and decreasing the impactof exceptionally highly cited paperson institutional scores.The findings are fully normalisedto reflect variations in citation volumebetween different subject areas. As aresult, institutions with high levels ofUniversities are excluded from the100 Under 50 list on the same basisas they are excluded from the WorldUniversity Rankings: if they do notteach undergraduates; if they teachonly asingle narrow subject; or iftheir research output amounted tofewer than 1,000 articles between2007 and 2011 (200 ayear).In some exceptional cases, institutionsbelowthe 200-paper thresholdare included if theyhaveaparticularfocus on disciplines with generally lowpublication volumes, such as engineeringor the arts and humanities.ScoresTo calculate the overall rankings,“Z-scores” were created for alldatasets except for the results ofthe Academic Reputation Survey.The calculation of Z-scoresstandardises the different data typeson acommon scale and allows fair

Nurseryendsand meansThere’smore than onekind of young university,says Richard Higgott, butall need to nourish andbe nourished by quality20 Times Higher Education 1May 2014The growth in the number ofuniversitiesworldwide is one of themore dramatic organisationalphenomena of the late 20th and early21st centuries. Unesco’s InternationalHandbook of Universities 2012 listsmore than 15,000 institutions. Suchnumbers raise the question of what isauniversity –and what in particularis a“new” university.Not all new universities are thesame. They can be public or (increasingly)private. In the old developedworld, some have morphed from mucholder colleges of technology or education–they might not benew in yearsbut rather in designation, and oftenhave an emphasis (initially at least) onteaching. We might call them the“de novo”universities. Then there arethose institutions that were actuallyestablished in the past 50 years withthe remit of the more traditional university–research and teaching (notresearch or teaching). We might callthem the “youngones”.Typical of the first group are theformer UK polytechnics and the Australianinstitutes of technology awardeduniversity status. Typical of the secondarethe UK’s 1960s “plate-glass” institutionssuch as the universities ofEssex, Kent, Lancaster and Warwick,and Australian bodies such as Flinders,Griffith and Murdoch universities,founded in the early 1970s.Similar, but in need of sharp distinction,are the “poster children” ofdeveloped Asia, notably the HongKong University of Science and Technologyand Nanyang TechnologicalUniversity in Singapore.The de novo universities more oftenthan not have along track record ofteaching, alarger student body and amore focused vocational remit, whilethe young ones usually have strongerresearch and fewer students.But both have three things in common:neither has the benefits securedfrom the traditions, longevity andaccrued esteem of established universities;bothhavetomaketheirwayinaworld characterised bythe challengesof globalisation; and bothoperate without the massive statesupport accorded to the Asian posterchildren.All new universities face constraintsand opportunities in makingthe transition from nationally to globallycompetitive universities. All seeinternationalisation of the student bodyand research collaboration as paths tosustainability and recognition.Strategies for dealing with thechallenges of globalisation andcapitalising on the benefits ofinternationalisation vary.New universitieslack the attributes of older ones:endowments, secure domestic marketsand strong international brands. Thosein the developed world most likelycater (usually willingly, Ishould say)for abroader range of students thanthe elite. Murdoch University, forexample, enrols only 35 per cent of itsundergraduates direct from school andtakes large numbers of mature studentsfrom low socio-economic areas whilegrowing its offshore activities (we have6,000studentsinSingapore). Thecontrasthere with Asian institutions isstark.In search of reputation and revenuediversity, the imperative to secure atoehold in the global market is apriority for new universities. Toooften,this imperative, in the UK and Australiaat least, can lead to a“nevermind the quality, feel the width”approach to securing students.Adverse consequences have arisenfrom such approaches. The otherdimension of the traditional university–the pursuit of knowledge throughresearch –can too easily be sidelinedin the dash for growth.Teaching and research are the keydrivers of international reputation:successful engagement with thedynamics and imperatives of globaltransition requires both. This is especiallytrue for the young ones. For asuccessful maturation process whilemaintaining an essential universitycharacter in the global academy’sfastchangingenvironment, several thingsare needed.First, it must be acknowledged thatthe young ones are never likely to befully comprehensive in adisciplinarysense. Nor,unlike de novo institutions,can they simply go for volume if theywish to maintain acalibrated researchteachingbalance (with research as thedriver). They need rather to search fora“rounded specialisation” in whichthey have substantial pockets of genuineresearch excellence, accompaniedby an ability to deliver aroundededucation across awider range ofdisciplines. Perhapsthe exemplar hereAlAMyis not ayoung one but an Asian posterchild: the HKUST, which has worldclassscience, some world-class socialscience and reasonable breadth in thehumanities.Second, it is necessary to rememberthe bedrock assumptions of the university:commitment to research andteaching, not just research or teaching.Of course, not all academic staff willdo both, but the young ones’ startingassumption must be that the vastmajority of faculty will, in recognitionof the inseparable link between theproduction of knowledge and its dissemination.Having two academicclasses –asmall core of highly qualifiedresearchers and alarge group ofteaching-onlystaff –might be afinanciallyviable and successful model, butit is difficult to think of it as auniversityin the traditional sense of the word.And it will not work for young onessuch as my institution, which tend tobe smaller than de novo universities.Athird (and perhaps most pressing)priority for the young ones is to stickto aquality agenda in all they do. Thisis especially importantfor universitiesembarking on the path to internationalisation.This must not be driven bythesearchfor morestudentsand morerevenue alone. Income generationwithout quality is unsustainable in thecross-border regulatory age. Qualityoverseas needs to be as good as athome. Regulatory agencies increasinglyare global and joined up.Imake these arguments with somefeeling. They represent the strategy towhich the leadership group at Murdochis committed. This strategy will requireus to hold our nerve over the next fewyears as things get tougher before theyget better (funds will be in short supplyand we will have to do more with lessif we are to reassert the primacy ofquality). It also requires us to bring theacademic community along in a“shared governance” format rather thanin acorporate, rule-maker, rule-takerrelationship. Strategy should be developedwith academic qualityatits core.For the quality agenda to prevail, universitiesneed to be academically ledand governed, not simply managed.Is this strategy Canute-like in itsaspirations? Time will tell. Reputations,like Rome, are not built in aday.Richard Higgott is vice-chancellorand president of MurdochUniversity.

AlAMyHere’stothe modernvintageWendyPurcell explainshowand whyuniversitynewcomers worldwideare offering bold newacademic flavoursOlder is better: well, that is whatthey say about wine –and whatthey used to say about universities,too. But not now,not since TimesHigher Education started shining thespotlight on excellence wherever it isfound, without regard to the datestamped on the university birthcertificate.The emergence of an ambitious andsomewhat precocious group of worldclassuniversities is worth celebrating,and it’s worth asking how we did it.Well, we have learned the secrets ofsuccess from our elders but not bettersto leapfrog into the future (and aheadof many of them). We can see thedangers of complacency, too.So how as auniversity doyou gofrom zero to hero? The key is excellence:there is simply no room formediocrity. Excellence in terms ofthe subject base for teaching, learningand research –and excellence in how22 Times Higher Education 1May 2014you do it –isamust. Youalso need toarticulate the distinctiveness of yourstudent experience and how you aretackling today’s grand challengesthrough research and its application.In addition, having asense of civicengagement andconnectedness to thecommunities you serve is vital.At Plymouth University, our academicand scholarly mission is to“advance knowledge and transformlives through education and research”–something most universities canidentify with. But it is our vision to be“theenterprise university”thatdistinguishesus.Enterprise –aspirit of boldness orreadiness in undertaking –infuses ourapproach to all our activities. We havesought to carveout adistinctive nichefor ourselves in acrowded market byviewing our teaching and researchthrough an enterprise lens. Adoptingthis pioneering perspective makes usunafraid to take risks.As aresult, we are making arealand sustainable difference to our students,staff, local community and thewider economy. This distinctivenesshas helped us emerge as part of aglobal elite ofnew universities –the100 Under 50.In the UK, we hear alot abouthigher education being disrupted as itis forced to evolve into amoremarketisedenvironment. But markets anddisruption have always been part ofour world, especially when we look atthe academy from an internationalperspective. To succeed, we need tobe clear about who we are –our brandproposition. Increasing demand forhigher education worldwide is acatalystfor universities with the agility andboldness that comes with youth tothink afresh about how to do things,because what we do as universitiesmatters to society.Strategy is about choice, and disruptionpresents choices. So, tosucceed at the highest level,leaders need to make decisions andembrace change. We must respondto the disruption applied to us andchoose to seek it for ourselves in lightof feedback from students, staff andstakeholders. In order to succeed, weneed to innovate while staying true toour purpose. Given the number ofmodern universities blazing atrail intothe global elite’s ranks, achieving inamatter of years what more establisheduniversities have takencenturiestoattain, it is clear weare doingjust that.Distinctiveness is achieved byfocusing on our purpose and deliveringwhat we are really good at. In afastmovinglandscape presenting myriadchallenges, there is heightened needfor strategic agility and asingularmarket presence, delivered throughthe university’s mission, leadershipand astrong, appropriately pricedacademic offering. Embracing andarticulating distinctiveness not onlyhelps individual universities to surviveand thrive in aglobalised marketplace,but it also adds richness to the sectoras awhole. We want amore heterogeneousand diversified academy –notvertically hierarchal, but horizontallystratified around excellence.Like Plymouth, many universitiesare formulating ways tostand out sothat they can succeed in an increasinglycompetitive global market. Andwe can already see how many are movingfrom self­interest to public service,becoming less “ivory tower” andmoreconnected, inclusive, distinct andsuccessful on the global stage.So you don’t need to be old; you justneed to be bold.Wendy Purcell is vice-chancellorand president of PlymouthUniversity.

24 Times Higher Education 1May 2014Free radicalthinkingUmran Inan on the secret to global success:recruit the best scholars and getout of the waySociety is experiencing anexplosion in the production ofknowledge, and university educationis in the midst of afundamentaltransformation. Teaching can no longermerely involve the transfer of knowledge,and research can no longer becarriedout behind disciplinary walls.Tertiary pedagogy must now be viewedas arendezvous between generations,with time in the classroom largelybased on dialogue between studentsand scholars learning from one another.In common with all people, studentsand academics produce the bestand the most when they are freest.Thus, the university must hire the bestfaculty it can, create an environmentthat attracts the best students, andthen get out of the way.Todosoisnoteasy as it means creating atruly freeenvironment and protecting it at allcosts, even at the expense of relinquishingcontrol.The most sacred place in the universitymust be the classroom: once thatdoor closes,the discoursebetween staffand students must occur as they see fit,with no interference from departmentalchairs, deans or anyone else.Any attempt to enforce establishednorms and procedures runs the risk ofinhibiting individual creativity andinnovation. As Oscar Wilde warned:“Consistency is the last refuge oftheunimaginative.”Itisbesttolet scholarsand students be, sothat they canachieve excellence, and to evaluateeach case on its own merits andcriteria, lest the desire to enforceconsistency allow mediocrity toflourish.Herein lies an opportunity foryoung institutions such as Koç University.Wecanmitigate the effects ofestablished norms and departmentalboundaries by not formingtheminthefirst place. There are no departmentalchairs at Koç: the dean of engineering,for example, is singularly responsiblefor faculty and other matters across allfive departments (electrical, mechanical,industrial, computer andchemical/biological engineering), andcan encourage and promote interdisciplinaryinteraction among them.Another advantage of young institutionssuch as Koç is their agility andability totake decisive and effectiveaction to capture opportunities withoutunnecessary bureaucracy (flexibilitymost readily seen atprivate not­forprofitinstitutions). As a“Foundation”university,Koç canand does promoteaculture of delegation of responsibilityso that all academic and administrativeunits can excel in ways that bestsuit them.The foremost requirement forencouraging interaction betweencolleges and schools is to makesure that all of their attainment meetsastandard of excellence. Here thecriteria used for academic recruitment,evaluation and promotion are of vitalimportance.At Koç, faculty are appointed andpromoted according to criteria basedsolely on external recommendationsfrom international peers. With notenure system, scholarly productivityis evaluated every five years. Theresult is an unusually strong academicworkforce in receipt of the most youngfaculty awards from the TurkishAcademy of Sciences and the secondhighest number of science awards fromthe Scientific and TechnologicalResearch Council of Turkey (Tübitak).Ninety per cent of the university’sacademicshave PhDs from the US, andevery faculty opening receives 60 to70 applications from around the world.Ultimately, what drives applicants isthedesiretorub shoulderswithhighqualitypeers.Topacademics generate ahigh rateof reputablepublicationsand citations–two areas measured by the TimesHigher Education rankings criteria inwhich Koç excels, matching the recordof institutions among the top 100 inthe world. Scholarly productivity alsomeans success in securing sponsoredresearch grants and contracts: withonly 250 professors, Koç receivesTurkey’s second­largest number ofEuropean Union grants.Interdisciplinary culture at theundergraduate level is already promotedby the liberal arts curriculumat Koç across all schools, includinglaw and medicine. At the postgraduatelevel, industry and governments areencouraging interdisciplinary collaboration,such as the European Commission’sHorizon 2020 programme,so that such thinking increasingly is amatter of survival.Arguably, the applications anddevelopments with the most importantsocietal impacts over the next decadeor so will involve the overlaps betweenmedicine, sciences, engineering,humanities, administrative sciencesand law.Once again, what the universitycan do is to appoint the best academicsacross the board so that allschools are excellent and make it easyfor them to interact, for example viajoint research seminars and seed supportfor collaborations. Creating afreeenvironment in which faculty canthrive is much more important thandefining astrategic niche.At the undergraduate level, recruitmentis not aproblem for us: 85 percent of Koç’sstudent intake hail fromthe top 2per cent in the country. Butthe most important challenge facing a20­year­old university in the globalmarketplace is recruiting PhDstudents.Our unusually high number ofresearch projects require that we rapidlyexpand ourdoctoralprogrammes.However,established schools and bigname brands attract Turkey’sbest PhDcandidates,despite thehighquality ofour faculty.Our strategy over the pastyear has been to double our doctoralintake, with aggressive recruitmentfrom neighbouring countries such asPakistan and Iran. This year we arestepping up recruitment in China,India, South America and Europe.We believe that creating the freestenvironment, hiring the best scholarsand promoting interdisciplinarythinking is all that auniversity can doto compete and excel in the globalacademic marketplace.Umran Inan is president ofKoç University.

Leading light of Lone Star StateThe University of Texas at Dallas is destined for the academic top table, says David E. DanielIn the early 1960s, the Dallas-FortWorth region lacked amajor scientificor engineering institution. Themayor of Dallas, along with two partners(the same trio whofounded TexasInstruments), set out to correct thatdeficiency.They began by assemblingalarge parcel of land and ambitiouslycreating the Graduate Research Centerof the Southwest. By 1969, the triodeclared the centre and its holdingsthe site of afuture “MIT of the Southwest”and struck adeal with the LoneStar State tocreate the University ofTexas at Dallas, an elite, researchoriented,exclusively PhD-grantinginstitution. Thus UT Dallas’ tale began.At launch, the institution was abuilding in the middle of acotton fieldhousing fewer than 100 academics anddoctoralstudents. Nearby universitiesopposed it, so much so that in 1990,when UT Dallas asked the state forpermission to admit freshmen, the dealhinged on two major concessionscalculated to doom the fledgling institution:UT Dallas promised to admitonly freshmen with extraordinarilyhigh academic credentials and to offerno programme that would compete withthose run by other local universities.Ultimately, far from dooming it,these restrictions advantaged the university.Fromthe start, UT Dallas studentshave been the best of the best,and this culture of excellence is oursingle greatest differentiator today.Thesecond restriction forced us into amultidisciplinary approach before suchwork was in vogue, inspiring afocus onprogrammes such as computer science,neuroscience and space science.The legislation restrictingUT Dallas was repealed in 2006, butnot much changed, asthe universityhad firmly embraced its identity as aplace on the rise via aconstant focuson growth and improvement. Ourfreshman class typically has the highestaverage SAT score among publicuniversities in Texas. We haveexpanded from 14,000 students in2005 to 21,000 today, with researchexpenditure tripling over the sameperiod. Our goal is to ascend rapidlyto the ranks of the world’sbest researchuniversities: by any measure, we areenjoying enormous success.What are the essential factorsin our progress? First, ourcommitment to our mission.UT Dallas’ founders focused onresearch, technologyand theirbenefitto commerce andsociety.Today,morethan80per centofour degreesare inscience, technology, engineering andbusiness. We avoid mission creep.Next is location. Dallas is one of theworld’slargest and most rapidly growingmetropolitan areas, with an insatiableappetite for the graduates weproduce (as our founders predicted).Our success is critical to the region:among the US’ 10most economicallyproductive metropolitan areas, onlyone lacks atop-tier research university–Dallas-Fort Worth. The city urgentlyneeds us to fill this gap –and we will.Third is our sister institution. TheUniversity of Texas SouthwesternMedical Center of Dallas is one of theUS’ premier medical research universitiesand acritical collaborator inrapidly expanding medical researchand technology work.Next is our boldness and agility.Small young institutions are inherentlynimble (of necessity) and UT Dallas’entrepreneurial culture promotes andrewards risk-taking. The institutionexperimented early with creative fixedtuition policies and introducedcutting-edge, interdisciplinary programmes.This willingness to takerisks is atreasured value.And finally, money. UTDallasoccupies an expensive niche in academia:science, engineering and business,focused on quality and research,costs. We unapologetically charge thehighest tuition fees of any Texan publicuniversity, yet are named year afteryear on the “best value” lists. Onevaluable resource we are able to drawon is the Permanent University Fund.This endowment, managed by theUT System, is derived from oil income.Thesefunds canbeusedfor constructingnew facilities and make our ambitiousgrowth plans realistic.Like all institutions, UT Dallas faceschallenges: principally,increasingawareness of the university,expanding its core infrastructure tokeep up with enrolment and facultygrowth, and raising private funds tosupport excellence.Our biggest, most immediate challengeis building new academic buildingson campus. Since 2005, we havestarted or completed construction onmorethan $600 million (£340 million)of infrastructure additions: however,needs continue to outstrip even thisaggressive programme’soutput.Private fundraising is vital toUT Dallas, as it is to every great USresearch university. But with arelativelyyoung alumni group, we and ourpeers in the 100 Under 50 must lookto companies, foundations and farsightedindividuals for the majority ofour private giving. In time, alumni willplay agreater role.UT Dallas’ future is bright. Ourfounders got the vision and missionright; the university has upheld thatmission and vision; and there’s anurgent local need for us to become oneof the world’s great research universities.Success seems assured, and ourleadership team’s primary job ismaking that goal areality as soon aspossible.David E.Danielispresident oftheUniversityofTexas at Dallas.26 Times Higher Education 1May 2014