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!

The UNMC Experience

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

Thank You!

Questions and Comments please