Exercise for 13 November 2018Note: Try to summarize the following paragraphs below individually and then try to come up with a single line summary/title for the extract. I strongly encourage you to do this exercise mentally - without writing the summaries anywhere. Once done, type your summary/title below and read the article and it's title and match the article's summary with yours. Both the summaries should be close enough. Try to time yourself - take no more than 3 minutes to complete this activity.Sample:Most of the competition and rules in Europe were regulated by the academic profession and bureaucratic rules set by the state, with higher education institutions playing a secondary role. The more extreme case was probably France: until 1968, the main pillars of the French university system were discipline-based faculties. Disciplines were the relevant level of regulation of the academic profession, and a discipline-based national body (the CNU, National council of universities), not universities, managed academic careers. As shown by Terry N. Clark, by the beginning of the 20th century, in social sciences the (naturally) male and Parisian ‘patron’ was central to the career and provision of resources for his ‘circle of disciples’, i.e. the numerous fellows waiting for the patron to grant them a position or promotion. In a recent paper, Jérôme Aust and Emmanuelle Picard also described the very active and prominent role that French ‘mandarins’ played at the end of the ‘50s, when project-based funding first developed. France’s extreme case of professor-based regulation of scientific competition—and the related absence of universities—also occurred in other parts of continental Europe, until recently. As stressed by Jürgen Enders and Ulrich Teichler, in the mid-1990s Germany saw strong competition among professors while universities were all considered as equivalent. This was also true for many other European countries, with the exception of the UK, where the higher education landscape has long been stratified.
The European situation is therefore quite different from the trajectory experienced by US higher education institutions. As shown by Burton Clark, US higher education institutions were often created through private individual initiatives, and developed strong institutional identities relying on what Burton Clark described as organizational sagas (1972). Unsurprisingly, the first institutional rankings emerged in the USA by the end of the 19th century with the Commission of the US bureau of education. This was repeated at the beginning of the 20th century by the psychologist James Catell and by the Chicago Tribune in 1957, until US News and World report was published in 1983. At that time the editors of US News, ‘decided to invest in educational rankings, as a way to distinguish themselves from their rivals by offering “news you can use”’. They have published rankings every year since.
This phenomenon has slowly spread to Europe over the last two decades. A first factor is the reforms implemented by most European countries to transform universities into organizations, and to increase universities’ managerial autonomy and institutional autonomy. The development of evaluation and accreditation agencies across Europe further reinforced the idea that training and research were not only individual-based but also institution-based. In the UK, the 1980s saw the introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise to evaluate university departments, allowing for a classification of institutions according to the grades they received. By the late 1990s, Germany’s CHE (center for higher education), a higher education think tank funded by the Bertelsmann foundation, had published the first rankings of German departments and universities, giving lie to the idea that all German institutions were alike. This trend intensified when the Shanghai ranking and other international rankings further emphasized the institutional level in their assessment of institutions. In other words, competition is no longer limited to individuals and nations; it has become multilevel. Competition cannot solely be approached at the individual level but rather must simultaneously be addressed at the individual, national and institutional levels, yielding a complex interplay between these different levels.
As competition between research universities intensified, the locus of this competition shifted from the national to the supranational level. Regions and nations are still competitive spaces for most universities, but the most successful institutions are no longer engaged in a national contest: they compete globally. Their teaching no longer aims to solely train nationals, but also ‘citizens of the world’. Their student body and faculty are less and less national, their research addresses international issues rather than purely domestic matters, and they are less dependent on national funding and authorities as they have managed to secure other sources of funding (often from the tuition paid by their international students). Thus, global, national and regional competitive arenas are intertwined. Global institutions do not primarily compete for their country but for themselves and against similar institutions. They expand to foreign countries where they develop branches, they recruit staff and students from around the world and they don’t depend on the resources of their national stakeholders as much as other institutions. Just like premier league soccer teams, their main competitors are outside national borders: although the nationality of the most renowned research universities is linked to the territorial location of their headquarters, the nationality of their students and staff depends on the competitive arena in which they operate as institutions, i.e. either the regional, national or global arena.