RIETI Policy Symposium

Universities of the Future from Social and Economic Perspectives

Information

Panel Discussion: Universities of the Future from Social and Economic Perspectives

Session Chair

  • TAMAI Katsuya (Faculty Fellow, RIETI / Professor, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Tokyo)

Panelists (in alphabetic order)

  • FUJISHIRO Makoto (Budget Examiner, Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Budget Bureau, Ministry of Finance)
  • HATA Takashi (Professor, Center for the Advancement of Higher Education, Tohoku University)
  • NAGAYAMA Yoshihisa (Director, National University Corporation Support Division, Higher Education Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)
  • YAKUSHIJI Taizo (Executive Member, Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office)
  • Michael K. YOUNG (President, the University of Utah)

Session Outline

The panel discussion began with opening statements made by each panelist concerning the issues on hand, followed by an exchange of views among the panelists. The panel discussion closed with a question-and-answer session between the panelists and the general audience.

Yoshihisa Nagayama Report

The report was based on a survey of the presidents of national universities in regard to their views on the incorporation of national universities.

  • Indicators of financial soundness are relatively low.
  • The internal functions and powers of university presidents and boards of trustees have been expanded, while the functions and powers of divisional faculty councils and similar bodies have been reduced, which represents a major change.
  • Universities have adopted a more positive stance toward obtaining external funding for education (keener interest in education). The stance toward obtaining COE programs has declined. This may be the result of a clear delineation between universities that can and cannot obtain COE funding.
  • The allocation of funds to cover the maintenance and development expenses for department facilities and the basic educational and research expenditures for individual instructors have both been reduced. On the other hand, allocations for discretionary school-wide operational expenses have been increased (discretionary expenses of university presidents, etc.).

Issues at hand:

  • Regarding the incorporation of national universities, significant differences in views exist among university presidents, directors, and faculty members. Furthermore, interpretations of incorporation vary significantly within individual universities as well as among universities and groups.
  • The following questions must be asked: are these differences "transitional or structural"; will they "continue to increase or decrease in the future"; and should they be "rectified or left to the discretion of individual institutions"? What causes these differences must be analyzed based on the responses received. For this purpose, thought must be given to the form of measures and support that will be provided in the future.

Makoto Fujishiro Report

Discussions on education contain a great deal of input from the teaching staff supplying the educational services, yet little input from students and taxpayers. Numerous proposals are being presented and discussed without adequate verification. One example is the following position: "The GDP ratio of Japan's education budget is lower than average and must be raised." Actually, in terms of spending per student, Japan's government spending on education is not inferior to other countries.

The difference between the GDP ratio of Japan's education budget and the OECD average is due to differences in the number of children. Therefore, there is no logical reason to argue for closing the gap with the OECD average. We should engage in scientific debate that is backed by solid empirical data. Before discussing the issue of money, there are many other issues that have to be sorted out with regard to incorporated national universities.

Suggestions from the perspective of taxpayers

  1. What areas should the government really be funding? (Need for government intervention, prioritization of the education budget.)
  2. Is the education budget being effectively utilized? (The use of the total budget of ¥19 trillion, of which ¥2.5 trillion goes to higher education.)
  3. From the perspective of taxpayers, what matters should be discussed? This question must be examined from the following micro (the standpoint of individual national universities) and macro (the standpoint of national universities as a whole) perspectives.
    1. Clearly define the core concept of individual universities. Improve the context of financial statements and clarify the relationship between educational affairs and management.
    2. Establish and clarify vertical divisions for the functions of individual universities.
    3. Prioritize the allocation of funds on the basis of a rigorous relative assessment of specific research areas.
    4. Improve educational capabilities in line with social and corporate needs.
    5. Integrate education and research, promote the mobility of students and faculty between universities, and reorganize and consolidate universities and their departments.

Taizo Yakushiji Report

Japan's future depends on the development of unique and creative scientific technology. In this context, there are three sources of concern with the current state of Japanese universities.

  1. Funds are not being allocated to creative researchers.
  2. Japanese students have become uninterested in studying abroad.
  3. Japanese students are not choosing majors in the fields of science and technology.

Michael K. Young Report

Major differences exist between the U.S. and Japan. However, in certain respects universities in these two countries are coping with similar problems. In light of the situation in the U.S., the following comments can be made concerning Japan's incorporated national universities.

  1. Japan is trying to use the market to determine the direction of its universities. However, it appears that this entire process is being directed by the government (bureaucracy). In the field of education, the wishes and intentions of students often do not match the directions given by the market. This makes it difficult to use the market to determine the direction of education.
  2. For example, "years needed to graduate" may be used as an indicator of the quality of education. That is, universities whose students are graduating on time would receive a high score. However, a truly valuable university education is one that takes in students with low levels of academic achievement, develops and heightens their capabilities by working with them until they advance to the next grade level (graduate). If the students being accepted have low academic levels, it would be natural to expect them to take longer to graduate. This means that "years needed to graduate" is not an appropriate indicator.
  3. If "years needed to graduate" is used as an indicator in evaluation, this will distort the admissions process. In other words, this will motivate universities to accept only students with high academic achievement levels. Using "level of achievement at graduation" as an indicator will also create distortions. The same can be said of other indicators as well.

Takashi Hata Report

The following issues were identified based on the presentations and discussions of the previous sessions.

  1. Is the government trying to apply a planned and controlled design to national universities, or will individual universities be given a chance to develop their own strategies and features? A system design that is too closely bound to objectives and functions may lack proper flexibility.
  2. Funds earmarked for research and funds earmarked for education have different roles to play. Incorporation enables management innovation. However, innovations are not easily generated in the fields of education and research. Openness, transparency, and development through trial-and-error are lacking in Japan's debate on higher education.
  3. In Japan, the model for innovation and university-industry cooperation is too strong. One of the most important functions of universities is to develop human resources through education. The problem of access to higher education is extremely important.

Panelists commented on the reports presented by other panelists.

Q: (Professor Katsuya Tamai)
Functional specialization among the national universities is an important issue. In this context, a key issue is the content of government plans and how the government intends to promote its vision. In any case, the policy authorities will definitely have to develop a vision. My question is: What are the principles and concepts that will serve as the basis for the formulation of policies?

A: (Mr. Yoshihisa Nagayama)

  • Functional specialization is inevitable because universities will have to change in response to social changes.
  • The Central Council for Education (2005) has identified seven functions for functional specialization. The key point is to advance toward functional specialization in a moderate and voluntary manner.
  • Functional specialization is inevitable because universities have become very large and geared toward mass education, and because they no longer have a monopoly on knowledge as they did in the past. Under contemporary conditions, society demands that universities perform a very broad range of functions.
  • Through a process of trial-and-error, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is now thinking about creating a number of groups. But the basic principle should be this: individual universities make their own choices and decisions on the direction that they will take, and they present these decisions to the public. One of the mechanisms for this process consists of the medium-term goals and plans that have been built into the incorporation of national universities.

A: (Mr. Makoto Fujishiro)

  • The government should present a vision and establish the broad framework. Also, the government should provide the stimulus to encourage universities to advance in directions that will allow them to make the best use of their strengths and features. In response to this, individual universities should consider their own situation and make their own choices. I believe this would be the desirable approach to take.
  • Each department should evaluate its own research activities and prioritize the allocation of its resources based on this. Universities that decide to focus on education would engage in developing the human resources in their own region. Functional specialization will gradually emerge from this nebulous state.
  • Are Japanese universities really fostering the type of human resources required by society? There is a very significant mismatch between academia and industry. The social standing of universities will improve when the human resources coming out of our universities come to be highly valued by the business community. One of the possible outcomes would be for companies to make donations to the universities.

A: (Dr. Taizo Yakushiji)

  • University education in Japan is too highly institutionalized and everyone is trapped in the same production process. This stunts the development of unique and creative human resources. We need to think back to the age when Japan was first developing its institutions of higher education, and to adopt a more comprehensive perspective.
  • Unless appropriate incentives are provided, both the students educated in regional universities and the outstanding faculty members of regional universities will continue to be drawn to the major cities, which promise greater economic returns.
  • The diversification of university education is a key issue. Japan lacks systems designed to discover hidden human resources (for example, methods for "casting the net widely").

Q: (Professor Katsuya Tamai)
How do you educate and foster human resources that can stand at the forefront of advanced research on a global level?

A: (Dr. Michael K. Young)

  • The U.S. has various types of universities that have emerged through a historical process of change and experimentation by the universities themselves. Various examples of excellence took root through this process.
  • Students are able to choose the type of university they want from a broad range of options. I believe students benefit greatly from attending universities.

A: (Professor Katsuya Tamai)

  • The incorporated national universities were told to make their own best efforts. It seems that "voluntary" efforts have been forced upon them.

A: (Dr. Sachi Hatakenaka)

  • In the U.S., when a young scholar or researcher is first employed, the organization provides him or her with start-up money. A similar system does not exist in Japan.
  • Today, there is a lack of "universities that are highly responsive to economic needs." (See page 5 of presentation ). A key issue is how we can create a system that will integrate the four categories of universities.

Questions and Answers

The following questions were received from the floor.

Q: (Professor Katsuya Tamai)
Mention was made of "casting the net widely." Does this mean providing research funds to post-doctorate students with an interest in research without a very detailed review process? If the output is good, funding is continued. If the output is bad, it is terminated. So, is the idea to cast a wide net over young researchers?

A: (Dr. Taizo Yakushiji)

  • In a system of "casting the net widely," the review takes the form of a second trial. If the research is showing progress, funding is continued; otherwise, funding is terminated. Another option is an "outcome-oriented approach" where the outcome of research is assessed by an appropriate evaluator (a seasoned judge).
  • Under the current system, funding is allocated to research laboratory units (to the whole of the research laboratory or to groups within the research laboratory). If this is the only form of funding provided, young and creative researchers will remain buried.

Comment: YAMAGUCHI Kazuo (Professor, University of Chicago / Visiting Fellow, RIETI)

  • Student advancement and dropout rates depend on the students that are admitted. The output of a scholar will increase if he or she is able to attract outstanding students.
  • In reality, the output of a university is the sum of the outputs of individuals or teams of individuals. It is better to use competitive funding more flexibly to also cover private universities and to thereby promote competition among individuals.
  • Ideally, the impact and benefits of education should be measured by gauging the actual progress made through the absorption of education. But this is difficult to measure. For example, to a certain degree we can measure the opportunities that a university is providing its young researchers and students. We can say that the possibilities generated depend on the breadth of the opportunities provided. The specialization of universities should proceed from within the university itself. It should be a gradual process of growth and development along the lines of an institution's strengths and advantages. When information on this specialization is relayed to prospective students, students will choose and apply to that university.

Q: (Professor Katsuya Tamai)
While it may be possible to evaluate the performance of individual researchers, it is much more difficult to properly evaluate the research output of an organization. There are those who argue that the proper evaluation of education is even more difficult. If it is so difficult to properly evaluate on the organizational level, why evaluate at all? If the evaluation process is forced, this generates costs related to meaninglessly going through the motions of evaluation. Therefore, the benefit of this type of evaluation would actually be negative. How would you respond to this?

A: (Mr. Yoshihisa Nagayama)

  • Currently, there are three forms of evaluation: evaluation of the national university corporation, evaluation for accreditation, and self-assessment. We are aiming to achieve pluralistic processes of evaluation. Universities cannot be assessed and ranked based on a single and uniform metric. The objective is to conduct pluralistic evaluations and to position the national university corporation evaluation and accreditation evaluation processes within this broader framework.
  • In the future, the administrative burden of evaluation will be reduced. The idea is to first develop a clear idea of the purpose and limits of evaluation and then create a mature system that focuses on extracting only necessary and sufficient information.
  • In the past, individuals or teams of individuals were assumed to be the basic unit in research, and Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research provided the main source of funding. However, research undertaken by entire organizations clearly exists. We are adjusting the system toward funding both types of approaches. As for evaluation, there is no need to focus purely on the evaluation of organizations or purely on the evaluation of individuals. At the start, we are thinking of methods of evaluation that combine both elements.

A: (Mr. Makoto Fujishiro)

  • From the perspective of those who are responsible for spending and investing the taxpayers' money, the notion of not evaluating is not a viable option. The process of evaluation stimulates students and their guardians to develop a keener interest in education and to become involved. Evaluation is also important for faculty members who are on the supply side. Evaluation allows them to view themselves in the mirror and to respond to what they see. The disclosure of evaluation results is an important trigger in this process.
  • There is a tendency to rank universities by the difficulty of admission. But the problem is that students do not possess complete information on the universities that they are applying to. We need better indicators of the performance of universities. Research should be evaluated for each department and faculty. This evaluation must be rigorous, it must be based on the assessment of relative performance, and the results must be made public.
  • In the area of education, each university must establish specific targets for the types of students it wants to foster. Having established such targets, it is then beneficial to investigate how successful the institution has been in fulfilling those targets.

A: (Professor Takashi Hata)

  • There is a difference between "outcome evaluation" and "output evaluation." It is difficult to measure outcomes from administrative services. Therefore, for such cases output evaluation has to be appropriately positioned.
  • When thinking about university education, we need to be aware of the fact that we are being asked what the "university" is in relation to various other educational institutions. Universities are institutions of higher education that are engaged in research.
  • All forms of funding are designed in ways that are advantageous to research universities, such as the University of Tokyo. Therefore, everyone strives to become a research-oriented university. This will definitely change if changes are made in the basic structure of funding.
  • Korea has adopted the policy of "optional incorporation." The idea is to experiment with the incorporation of universities and to decide later on whether or not to go down this path.
  • Why don't we create the ideal university? If that model is successful, other national universities will emulate it. What I mean to say is that discussion of general and abstract issues is not enough. We need to engage in concrete and specific discussions.

Closing Remarks

  • The question of what we need to do with our universities is a question that is also being actively debated in Europe and the U.S. The discussions today have made us aware of the depth of this question and of the need to move forward on these challenges.
  • Each country and region of the world has its own serious problems in the area of higher education. And within Japan, there are serious problems that are unique to each locality or type of university. How these problems are solved will probably have an extremely important bearing on the future of Japan. We fully understand that universities are destined to become core institutions in the age of knowledge creation. The conclusion that we draw from the discussions today is that the future of Japan will depend to an important degree on the future performance of its universities. In fact, we are left with the premonition that the future of all countries will be determined by the quality of their universities.