The Future of the Research University: Meeting the Global Challenges of the 21st Century

8/14/2019 The Future of the Research University: Meeting the Global Challenges of the 21st Century

1/148

THE FUTURE OF

THE RESEARC HUNIVERSITYMeeting theG lobalChallengesofthe 21stCentury


2/148

4801 Rockhi l l Road

Kansas Ci ty , Missour i 64110www.kauf fman.org

2008 by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. All rights reserved.

The Future of the Research UniversityM e e t ing t he G lo b a l C ha l lengeso f t he 21s t C e nt ury

A volume of scholarly papers addressing the future

of the university for the entrepreneurial age, presented at the

2008 Kauffman-Planck Summit on Entrepreneurship Research and Policy

held June 8-11, 2008, in Bavaria, Germany.


3/148

Table of Contents

Introduction

TheFutureoftheUn iversityand Pub lic Research ................................................5fortheEntrepreneurialAge

by Carl J. Schramm

AViewfromtheUn itedSta tes

Building anEntrepreneurialUn iversity ...............................................................11by Michael M. Crow

Building aG lob alUn iversity ................................................................................31by Alan Merten

AViewfromEurope

TheFuturesofUn iversitiesinEurope..................................................................38by Thomas Andersson

ForGermanUn iversities, aTimeofSweeping Ch ange .......................................48by Axel Freimuth

TertiaryEducat ionInstitutionsinTimesofCh ange: ...........................................55ASystemsApproachtoInstitutionalTransform at ion

by Manuel Heitor

TheFutureoftheEuropeanUn iversity: ..............................................................68Issues, Entrepreneurship, andAlliances

by Wolfgang Herrmann

Moving fromaManagedEconomytoan ...........................................................75EntrepreneurialEconomy: TheCh allengeforEurope

anditsUn iversities

by Jan Willem Oosterwijk

AViewfromIsrael

EntrepreneurialUn iversities: TheView fromIsrael .............................................84

by Manuel Trajtenberg

Ad ditional PapersUn iversityAlert: TheInform at ion RailroadisCom ing ........................................95

by William Wulf

The RoleoftheG lob alUn iversityInAccelerat ing ............................................110D iscovery-to-ProductinBioPharmaceuticals:

Som eBlackSwan Scenarios

by Frank Douglas

Sho uldUn iversitiesBeAgentsofEconomicDevelopment?..............................123by Robert E. Litan and Lesa Mitchell

SummaryofD iscussion ........................................................................... 139

[ 3 ]


4/148

[ 4 ]

i n t r o d u c t i o n

The importance of theentrepreneur was long the

not-so-secretif ofteninsufficiently appreciated

key to the success of the

American economy. Now,entrepreneurship is drivinggrowth everywherefromIsrael to Ireland, Taiwan toTurkey, and, of course, in

India and China.

Carl J. Schramm


5/148

[ 5 ][ 5 ]


TheFutureoftheUn iversityand

Public ResearchfortheEntrepreneurialAge

by Carl J. SchrammPresident and Chief Executive OfficerEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation

It iscommonplace to say that we l ive in the Information Ageand no less

true because oft-repeated. But also no less trueyet hardly ever

repeatedis the fact that we l ive in an Entrepreneurial Age . How these

two basic trendsthe dominant forces of our timeintersect is the topic of

this volume , and of the conference on which it is based.

Apart from fringe anti-g lobaliza tion activists, nearly every observer today holdsthat the Information Age is a good thing .It is ra ising living standards, alleviat ing

poverty, expand ing opportunity,increasing the wea lth of nations,improving

productivity, reducing the potential for conflict, and enhancing quality of life . A ll th isis

w ide ly understood.

The basic rea lities of the Entrepreneurial Age are not as well appreciated,

though they are arguably even more powerfuland inarguably wholly intertw ined w ith

the fate of the information revolut ion . Consider: World GDP has grown more than

tenfold since 1970and four-fifths of that growth has occurred since countriesin the

develop ing world and those once behind the Iron Curtain began to liberalize their

economies. Th is is, to say the least, not a coincidence. Where there is economic


6/148

[ 6 ]


freedomwhere ind ividuals w ith ideas and drive can pursue their dreamsmoney is

made,cap ita lis formed, and the pie expands.

The importance of the entrepreneur waslong the not-so-secretif often

insufficiently appreciatedkey to the success of the American economy. No w,

entrepreneurship is driving growth everywherefrom Israel to Ire land, Taiwan to Turkey,

and, of course,in Ind ia and China . Even the mature economies of the O ld Worldlong

enamored of central planning and t ight coord ination between big business and big

governmentare getting into the act, under the ambitious goals of the Lisbon Agenda.

Yet there is reason for concern.In the Information Agewhen wealth ,

progress, and success are more than ever derived from the mind rather than the soil

how well are the chief repositories of information , our universities, keeping up? How

well do they understand , and incubate , and practice, entrepreneurship themselves? Are

todays un iversities equipped to support and augment the worlds burgeoning culture of

entrepreneurship? And,if not, ho w can we help them become so?

More specifically, the tw in engines of entrepreneurship and the know ledge

economy have ushered in many rad ical innovat ions: new forms of technologyfrom IT

to biotechnew patternsin society, new demands on the

workplace, even new modes of living . Un iversities were

instrumentalin develop ing much of this radicalinnovat ion ,

but how well have they kept up w ith its transformative

impact?

Rising living standards enable more and more

people throughout the world to earn a university educat ion .

The demands of the know ledge economy make such an

educat ion more and more valuableand outright necessaryfor certain careers. A result has been massive demographic

change on campuses. Vastly more students are com ing to study, and their backgrounds

are more diverse than ever, by every measure, whether age, ethnic group, or socio-

economicstatus. How are the universities adapting to this fundamenta lchange among

their consumer base, asit were?

Fina lly, un iversities are no longer self-contained.It is not so much that the Ivory

Tower has been breached; more that every individua l tower is now linked to every other in

ways, and to a degree, that are unprecedented. Competitionfor students, for faculty, for

research funds, even for attentionis at a fever pitch. And it is no longer merely regional,

or intra-state, or even national. That competition is now globa l, and becoming more so.

Rising living stand ards

enablemoreandmore

peoplethrougho ut

theworldtoearna

un iversityeducat ion.

The de mand softhe

knowledgeeconomy

makesuchaneducat ion

moreandmore

valuable.


7/148

[ 7 ]


The Kauffman Foundation and the Max Planck Institute convened a conference

in the summer of 2008 to explore just these issues. We brought together more than a

dozen leading experts from Europe,Israel, and the United Statespresidents of

un iversities, renowned researchers, people steeped in the mission of what a university

should be . They brought diverse perspectives and unique insights, but severalcommon

themes emerged.

Manuel Tra jtenbergprofessor of economics

at Tel Aviv Un iversitycrysta ll ized the frameworkfor think ing about these issues by observing that

entrepreneurial un iversity really has three

possible meanings.

First is the extent to wh ich un iversities are

innovat ive in terms of their own institu tions, how they

are structured and governed, and how they adapt to change.Second is the extent to

which un iversitiescan drive entrepreneurship in the broader economy by generating

ideas, tra ining entrepreneurs, and working w ith the businesscommunity. The third

sense of un iversities as entrepreneurial institutionsis their ab il ity to effect broader

change throughout society

at large.

Few would disagree that universities have lagged considerab ly at

entrepreneurship in the first senseat reforming themselves. As robust as they can be

as agents of change for the world around them, they remain stubbornly resistant to

change w ith in their own walls. But for universities to fully and effective ly become

entrepreneurial in the second sense, they w ill have to embrace entrepreneurship in the

first sense.

Our presenters understand that. Three of Europes most innovat ive university

presidentsled off the conference, described the obstacles to change , and voiced their

determination to overcome them. M ichael Crow recounted his efforts to transform

Ar izona State , up to and includ ing abolishing academic departments,creating new

ones, and even helping to found entire ly new disciplines. And A lan Merten explained all

the ways in which his own universityGeorge Masonhaschanged over the past

decade, and is now going global.

The second senseexp licitly fostering entrepreneurship in businessis more

prob lemat ic. Un iversities never have been at ease embracing this ro le, preferring to

keep their distance from the private sector and instead partner w ith government or

Forun iversitiestofully

andeffectivelybecome

entrepreneurialinthe

secondsense, they

willhavetoembrace

entrepreneurshipin

thefirstsense.


8/148

[ 8 ]


other nonprofits. Yet , whatever misgivingsitsinhabitants may have, the university plays

a vita l ro le in nurturing entrepreneurship.It trains the scientists who make the

groundbreak ing theoretical discoveries, the engineers who find practical applicat ions for

those discoveries, the businessmen who bring those applicat ions to market, and the

managers who keep those businesses running . A ll th isis done w ithout any conscious

plan .In some cases, un iversities end up as primary conduits of talent and ideas for

entire industriesStanford and the Silicon Valley being the shining examples.

A ll of the presenters touched on this topic to some extent, but three did somost directly.Jan W illem Oosterw ijkpresident of Erasmus Un iversity in Rotterdam

ta lked about the universitys history in fostering entrepreneurship, and described a new

un iversity and private sector partnership specifically geared to bu ilding a culture of

entrepreneurship in Dutch society.Robert Litan and Lesa M itche llboth of the

Kauffman Foundat ionra ised the question of whether

th is direct approach is desirable, on ly to answer w ith a

qu ick and emphatic, yes. The bulk of the ir discussion

then focused on the how: getting the approach, and

the mix, right.

Un iversities have clearly exhibited great facil ity at

entrepreneurship in the third sense,changing the societ ies

around them mostlybut not alwaysfor the better.

Indeed, the gains of the know ledge economy are inconceivable in the absence of h igh

quality, and w ide ly availab le, post-secondary schooling . Un iversities also have acted as

agents of socialchange, bring ing new opportunity to formerly margina lized groups.

Several of the conference speakers exp lored this aspect of the un iversitys ro le.

W illiam Wulf, one of Americasleading computer scientists,showed how so many of

the technolog icalinnovat ions that have revolut ion ized society, business, and everyday

life originated on campuses and in labs. Manuel He itor, educat ion minister for the

government of Portuga l, made an aggressive case for greater direct invo lvement

between universities and the societ ies they serve. And Frank Douglas,sen ior fellow at

the Kauffman Foundat ion and one of the worlds most distinguished biotech

researchers,laid out a hopeful vision of how un iversitiescou ld take a leading role in a

revolut ionary new approach to find ing a cancer cure .

The papers and the discussion that follow explore these and many other facets

of what it means to be an entrepreneurial un iversity. They define the questions and

The gainsofthe

knowledgeeconomyare

inconceivableinthe

absenceofhighquality,

andwide lyavailable,

po st-secondary

schooling.


9/148

[ 9 ]


propose answers,in the processshedding much light on one of the most important

cha llenges facing the university in our time .

Thanks go to David Audretsch of the Max Planck Institute , and to Robert Litan

and Lesa M itche ll of the Kauffman Foundation , for organizing thisconference. The

conference also greatly benefited from the part icipation of the many other experts who

attended .

Th is vo lume doesnt have all the answers. But know ing the right questions,

and understanding them,is the necessary first step toward w isdom.


10/148

[ 10 ]

There are approximately5,000 institutions of higher

education in the United Statesand, of these, roughly 150,

both public and private,are classified as research

extensive in the classificationestablished by the Carnegie

Foundation for Higher

Education. These are theinstitutions that increasingly

fuel the national economy byproducing leaders in all

sectors of academia, business,industry, and government, and

through perpetual innovationin products and processes.

Michael M. Crow

a v i e w f r o m t h e u n i t e d s t a t e s


11/148

[ 11 ]


Enterprise is a concept sometimes wh olly lacking in discussions about

higher education and the American research university. Academic

enterprise and the entrepreneurial academicculture that such an

orientation instills encourage creativity and innovation with intellectual

capital

the primary asset of every college and u niversi ty.

Generally associated w ith the private sector, the spirit of enterprise is

nonethe less high ly relevant to the advancement of all of our nat ion scolleges and

un iversities, but especially our research un iversitiesinstitutions dedicated to both

teaching and discovery. There are approximately 5,000 institutions of higher educat ion

in the United States and, of these, roughly 150, both public and private, are classified

as research extensive in the classificat ion established by the Carnegie Foundat ion for

Higher Educat ion . These are the institu tions that increasing ly fuel the national economy

by producing leadersin allsectors of academia, business,industry, and government,

and through perpetualinnovat ion in products and processes.

Building anEntrepreneurialUn iversity

by Michael M. CrowPresident, Arizona State University

Michael Crow is the president of ArizonaState University.Prior tojoining ASU in 2002, hewas executive vice provost of Columbia University, where he also was professor ofscience andtechnology policy. Aschief strategist of Columbias research enterprise, he led technology andinnovation transfer operations and the establishment oflarge-scale interdisciplinary research initiatives.

A fellow of the National Academy ofPublic Administration, he is the author of books and articles onresearch organiza tions, technology transfer, and public policy asit relates to science and technology. Heholds a BA fromIow aState University and aPhD inPublic Administration fromSyracuse University.


12/148

[ 12 ]


Since becom ing the president of Arizona State University in July 2002,I have

been leading an effort to reconceptua lize a large public un iversity as an academic

enterpriseag ile,competitive , adaptable, and responsive to the chang ing needs both

of our constituencies and globalsociety alike . The speed w ith which we now make and

imp lement decisions and establish collaborative relat ionships w ith other academic

institu tions, and w ith business and industry,ischaracteristic of private enterprise. As an

enterprise, we acknow ledge and embrace the fact that we operate in a competitive

arena. We are competing not only for research do llars and private investment, but

also for the very best students, faculty, and administrators, and above all , for the very

best ideas.

Instilling the spirit of enterprise into the institutionalculture of a public

un iversity is on ly one of my ob jectives as the president of an emerging research

institu tion . The larger task we have taken on is to redefine public higher educat ion

through the creation of a prototype solut ion-focused institution that combines the

highest leve l of academic excellence, maximum societalimpact, and inclusiveness to as

broad a demographic as possible.Predicated thus on excellence, access, and impact,

the paradigm isconceptua lly framed as the New American University.

The spirit of enterprise I endorse therefore must be integrated into a larger

context . Academic enterprise is on ly one of e ight design aspirations for the New

American University. There are many ways to parse the concept of the New American

Un iversity, but, in brief , its ob jectives are inherent in the

fo llow ing guide lines that, reduced to their essential terms,

en join the academiccommunity to (1) embrace the

cultural,socioeconomic, and physicalset ting of the

institu tion; (2) become a force for societal transformation;

(3) pursue a culture of academic enterprise and know ledge

entrepreneurship; (4)conduct use-inspired research; (5)

focus on the ind ividualin a mil ieu of intellectual and

cultural diversity; (6) transcend disciplinary limita tionsin

pursuit of intellectual fusion; (7)socially embed the

un iversity, thereby advancing social enterprise development through direct engagement;

and (8) advance global engagement . Taken together, these comprise a paradigm for

academicinstitu tions, both public and private, that I advocate w ithout reservat ion . A ll

of the design aspirations are interre lated, but in the follow ing I w il l focus primarily on

academic enterprise. Before we consider our efforts to rethink the contemporary

Wearecompeting no t

on lyforresearchdo llars

andprivateinvestment,

butalsoforthevery

beststudents, faculty,

andadm inistrators, and

aboveall, forthevery

bestide as.


13/148

[ 13 ]


American research un iversity, the follow ing brief historical overview of the institutional

form w il lset the context for a d iscussion of its present design flaws and the imperative

for its reconceptualiza tion .

The Evo lution aryTrajectoryoftheAmerican ResearchUn iversity

W ith a g lobal populat ion of 6.5 billion projected to increase to 8.5 billion by

mid-century, we face cha llenges of unimaginable complexity, both as a species and,

more narrow ly,in terms of our standard of living and

quality of life as a nation . But we strive to deny

complexity in our national po licymaking and planning ,

and, rather than learning to understand and manage

complexity in the academy, we restrict our focus w ith

ever-greater specializa tion and the narrow ing of

disciplines. Our universities remain high ly sta tic, resistant

to change, un w illing to evolve in pace w ith real time , and

focused primarily on their advancement of abstract

know ledge . The organiza tional frameworks we call

un iversitiesth is thousand-year-old institu tional form

have not been designed to accommodate change on the

scale we are w itnessing or the attendant increases in

complexity. Moreover, organiza tionalconstra ints derived from the flawed institutional

design of our colleges and universities prevent them from realizing their entrepreneurial

potent ial.In order for our un iversities to overcome their ossificat ion , academic

enterprise must become a new organ izing principle, both organiza tionally and

conceptua lly. American research un iversities need not remain sta tic, monolith ic

behemoths, un w illing or unable to advance their own institutional evo lut ion or to

catalyze positive societal transformation .

The evolut ionary trajectory of universitiesin the Western world can be

mode led as a process visua lized along two axes. The x-axis represents the scale of the

institu tion , w ith scale meaning more than just size .Scale in th is usage refers to the

breadth of functionality, which measures more than just the number of disciplines

studied .If the institution is a comprehensive know ledge enterprise such as the New

American University,it w il l be committed to the traditional missions of teaching ,

research, and publicservice, but,in addition , w il l advance innovat ion and

entrepreneurship.Scale thus refers to both the intellectual, or pedagogical, and

W itha glob alpopulat ion

of 6.5 billionprojected

toincreaseto 8.5 billion

bymid-century,

wefacechallenges

ofun imaginable

complexity, bo thas

aspeciesand , more

narrowly, interm sof

ourstand ardofliving

andqu alityoflif e

asanat ion.


14/148

[ 14 ]


functional breadth . The y-axis, meanwh ile, reflects the institutionsconception ofitself

as an evolving , entrepreneurial entity. At the low end of the y-axis, we have what

organ iza tional theoristscallconserving institu tions, those that are inwardly focused ,

risk-averse, and concerned primarily w ith self-preservat ion . At the upper end are

entrepreneurial institutions, those w illing to adapt,innovate, and take risksin rethink ing

their ident ities and roles.In the follow ing chart, the New American University appears in

the curve in the upper-right quadrant reserved for leading-edge institutions designed to

accommodate innovat ion , rapid decision-making , and entrepreneurial behavior.

A brief historical overview of the lineage of our universitiesin a sense, our

institu tional geneticcodedemonstrates the dynamics between scale and innovat ion .

On the hil ls around Athensin Greece, academies formed more than 2 ,400 years ago

when ind ividuals of astonishing intellect like Socrates and Plato and Aristotle assembled

and began to conceptualize and advance the core pedagogical methodo logy that we

still use to the present day. The ancient Greek academies developed the capacity to

understand nature and society in complex terms, but they were tiny in scale and

exclusive ly conservative , in the sense of entrusting themselves to conserve

TRANSFORMATION

SMALL SCALE

LARGE SCALE

INNOVATIVE HIGH RISK

CONSERVING LOW RISK

GREEKACADEMIES

EUROPEAN MEDIEVALUNIVERSITIES

GERMA N RESEARC HUNIVERSITIES

AMERICAN RESEARCH

UNIVERSITIES

LAN DGRAN T

UNIVERSITIES

NEWAMERICAN

UNIVERSITY

LEADING EDGE

INNOVATIVE

UNIVERSITIES


15/148

[ 15 ]


know ledge . The ancient academies had litt le impetus to dissem inate know ledge beyond

their sma llcircles and no conception of the notion of risk and reward.

Fast-forward 1,500 years: The first un iversities begin to emerge. Bo logna,

probably the oldest un iversity in the Western world, was established in the e leventh

century, fo llowed by the University of Paris and,soon thereafter, Oxford and

Cambridge; institutionslike Uppsala Un iversity,in Sweden, and Jag iellon ian University,

in Krakow, become great centers of learning . W ith in th is ethos, un iversities emerged as

organ iza tions focused on d iscovery. Our very understanding of who we are as a speciesand our place in the universe is the product of scho lars and scientists working in these

great institutions.In the office of the rector of Jag iellon ian University, an institution

established in 1364, one can find the instruments that Copernicus used to determine

that the Earth was not the center of the un iverse. The medieva l European universities

were slightly larger in scale and only slightly more focused on dissem inating know ledge .

These institu tions had only the most limited concept of risk and reward.

Fast-forward again to the late eighteenth century: Industrializa tion in Europe

begins to transform the socioeconomic and cultural landscape,spreading from Great

Brita in throughout Western Europe, and especially into central and northern Germany.

Driven largely by industrialcompet ition and the emergence of the notion of efficient

technology-driven compet itiveness, the German un iversities that arose in the e ighteenth

century focused on specialized scientific research and were thus the predecessors of

American research un iversities, but, w ith few exceptions, entrepreneurship wasstill litt le

in evidence.

The prototype for the American research un iversity was established in 1876 by

Johns Hopk ins Un iversity, which combined the traditional American undergraduate

liberal artscollege w ith the German model of the elite scientific research institute

offering specialized graduate tra ining . The American research un iversity thuscame into

be ing in the decades between 1876 and 1915 . During this formative period , existing

mature universities redefined themselves as research-grade institutions and new

institu tions were established on the Hopkins prototype. The roster includesinstitu tions

that set the standard for the American research un iversity, includ ing Harvard, Columbia,

M ichigan,Ill ino is, California,Stanford , Chicago, MIT, and others.Some of these were

land-grant universities established under the M orril l Act. W ith their connection to large-

scale agricultural research, these were among the first un iversities to explicitly take on a

broader functional mission , that of advancing the agricultural and mechanical arts for

the growth of the country.Rather than focus on teaching the classics to the privileged,


16/148

[ 16 ]


the land-grant institu tions became invo lved in production agriculture and thus further

advanced the mode l of the entrepreneurial un iversity. The land-grant schools had the

capacity to create products and processes and other forms of cap ita l that cou ld be sold

and used by consumers outside the university system, and entrepreneurship came to

the forefront.Follow ing the example of these pioneering institutions, un iversitieslike

Stanford and MIT committed themselves to entrepreneurial risk-tak ing and prospered.

The establishment of the prototype of the American research un iversity was a

critical evo lut ionary step in the growth and development of un iversities,set ting thepattern for intense and focused discovery across all disciplines, the emergence of

American-style graduate study leading to advanced degrees,includ ing the PhD , and the

emergence of the professoriate as both teachers and practitioners. The important point

in th issketchy historical overview is that institu tions of higher learning ,like all

organ iza tions, are evolving entities. To the extent that they can adapt to a changing

environment or, better yet,lead the change , they survive and flourish.Like other

organ iza tions, they also must be wary of institu tionalinertia, the resistance to change

that almost certainly would bring about the ir demise.

Institutionalinertia is nowhere more evident than in the academic va loriza tion

of increasing ly specialized know ledge .In our effort to produce abstract know ledge

w ithout regard for its impact, many universities have lost sight of the fact that they are

also institu tions w ith the capacity to create products and processes and ideas w ith

entrepreneurial potential.Prestige always w il l attach to the pursuit of the unknown , but

I wou ld argue that we must reprioritize our practices and rethink our assumptionsif we

are not to m inimize the potent ialcontributions of academic enterprise. Through some

strange elitist log ic, the concept of entrepreneurship has

been eradicated from institutions of higher educat ion in

th is nation .I wou ld argue that we have been excessive ly

attached to our lineage from the academies of ancient

Greece and the medieva l European universities. We must

instead design some of our institu tions to allow us to be

competitive and address the cha llenges that w il lconfront

globalsociety in the decades ahead. Our universities must

recover an entrepreneurial edge if they are to be re levant and useful on a globalscale.

Yet , however sign ificant the potential of their contributions to societal advancement,

entrepreneurial un iversities must first expand access to a broader demograph icif their

impact is not to be d iminished.

Institutionalinertiais

nowheremoreevident

thanintheacademic

valorizat ionof

increasinglyspecialize d

knowledge.


17/148

[ 17 ]


D ilemma: ExcellenceorAccess?

Research un iversities both in the United States and around the world are the

primary sources of the know ledge and innovat ion that have driven the global economy

and provided those of usin advanced nations w ith the standard of living that we have

come to take for granted . But in America and elsewhere ,leading institu tions tend to be

exclusivethat is to say, they define their excellence based on exclusion .It generally is

taken for granted that there are two types of universities: those that focus on academic

excellence and d iscovery, and those that focus on accessproviding a base leve l of

higher educat ion .Institu tions that focus on academic excellence generally admit on ly

the finest students, most of whom come from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds

and have enjoyed undeniab le advantages. A ll others are expected to attend less

competitive schools.In terms of societal outcomes, th isimp licit calculat ion not only is

shortsighted, but also may,in the long run, be a fatal error. There is grow ing social and

economicstratificat ion between those w ith access to a qua lity higher educat ion and

those w ithout. More and more students who would most benefit from access to this

most obvious avenue of upward mobil itythose whom we m ight categorize as

disadvantaged or underrepresentedare denied access for lack of means or

choose not to pursue for lack of understanding of a h igh-qua lity university educat ion .

Higher educat ion is the means by which a skil led workforce is produced and

the source of new know ledge cap ita l and, thus, economic growth and advancesin

society, for the benefit of both the ind ividual and the collective . The global economy

requiresskilled workers, and the wage gap between those w ith educat ion and skil ls and

those w ithout continues to w iden. More and more know ledge inputs are increasing ly

required to perform almost any job in the new global know ledge economy. The

economicsuccess of ind ividualscontributes to the success of a societyin fact,it is the

ma in driver.

If we continue to exclude a h igh proportion of the populat ion from reaching

their prosperity potential by excessive and sometimes arb itrary cull ing , we deprive

countlessind ividuals of opportunities to attain prosperity. We need to make more of an

effort to understand how to educate greater numbers of ind ividualssuccessfu lly, but we

also must educate people to be successfu l. Th is economic dimension isintrinsic to the

societal mission of colleges and universities.Ind ividuals deprived of higher educat ion

through lack of funds represent not only personal opportunity lost, but also the loss of

societal economic prosperity.Ind ividuals deprived of college educat ions like ly w il l earn

lower wages and generate fewer jobs than they wou ld have as graduates. A lack of


18/148

[ 18 ]


higher educat ion is not only a personalloss; it is a loss for all of society and the

global economy.

We reject the convent ional w isdom that excellence and accesscannot be

achieved in a sing le institu tion and have committed ourselves to building a university

that combines the highest leve ls of academic excellence w ith access to a broad

demographic, and to accomplish th is at scale.Such an institution seeks to provide the

best possible educat ion to the broadest possible spectrum of society, embracing the

educat ional needs of the entire populat ionnot only a select group, and not only theverbally or mathematically gifted.Itssuccess w ill be measured not by whom the

un iversity excludes, but rather by whom the un iversity includes, and from th is inclusion

w il lcome the diversity necessary for the advancement of society.

Our mission , as we have conceived it, is to build a comprehensive metropolitan

research un iversity that is an unparalleled combination of academic excellence and

commitment to itssocial, economic,cultural, and environmentalset ting . Excellence,

access, and impact are thusintegral to our mission and integrated in a sing le institu tion .

Of the 150 major research institutionsin our nation , both public and private, ASU alone

hassought to redefine the notion of ega litarian admissionsstandards. Our approach

has been to expand the capacity of the institu tion to meet burgeoning enrollment

demand , and provide expanded educat ional opportunities to the many g ifted and

creative students who do not conform to a standard academic profile, as well as

offering access to students who demonstrate every potential to succeed but lack the

financial means to pursue a qua lity four-year undergraduate educat ion . Our admissions

standards are determined by our assessment of a potent ialstudents ab il ity to do

un iversity-leve l work, not by test scores or some other arbitrary ind icator.

In the rapidly changing and high ly competitive global know ledge economy, theva lue of a un iversity educat ion has never been greater. Higher educat ion is the means

by which a skil led workforce is produced , and is the source of economic growth and

advancesin our society, for the benefit of both the ind ividual and the collective . Our

colleges and universities play a key ro le in ensuring that, as a nation , we w il lcontinue

to lead the world in innovat ion , ma intain our compet itive advantage, and weave the

fabric of our economic prosperity. W ithout an increasing ly high ly educated citizenry, we

as a nation may face a reduction in our quality of life in the next generat ion ,someth ing

unheard of in the past.In order for America to rema in compet itive , it isimperative that

our universities prepare our students to learn rapidly, and make them capable ofintegrating a broad range of disciplinesin a rapidly changing world. But the institu tional


19/148

[ 19 ]


design of our universities may itself represent an inherent obstacle. Our

reconceptualiza tion of ASU has been undertaken to correct a number of inherent

design flawsin American research un iversities.

Demograph icChallengestoExcellence, Access,

andImpact

Ar izona State University is at once the youngest

and largest and fastest grow ing of a ll ma jor Americanresearch institutions, enroll ing more than 64 ,000

undergraduate, graduate, and professionalstudents in

twenty-one colleges of equally high aspiration configured

across metropo litan Phoenix. ASU is the only comprehensive university in a metropolitan

reg ion w ith a populat ion that a lready exceeds four million and is pro jected to merge

into a megapolitan corridor w ith a populat ion that cou ld approach ten million in the

com ing few decades. As one of the fastest-grow ing statesin the nation , Ar izona w ill

continue to experience large increasesin itscollege-age populat ion but lacks a sufficient

four-year college infrastructure to accommodate that growth. Ar izonas economy isinsufficiently diverse to accommodate its populat ion expansion , and the state has ma jor

cha llenges associated w ith its environment, health care ,socialservices,imm igration ,

and the performance of P-12 educat ion . Asis the case in California, where minorities

already constitute a majority, w ith in the near term, no sing le demographiccategory w ill

comprise a majority of the popu lat ion in Ar izona. The rapid populat ion growth is

accompanied by rapid cultural diversificat ion , and the unprecedented transformation of

the regional demographic profile requires ASU to offer access, promote diversity, and

meet the special needs of underserved populat ions.

At the same time that the greater Phoenix metropolitan region matures and

becomes the heart of a vast megapolitan region , ASU hasset a course to evolve from a

reg ional un iversity to a nat ional research institu tion of top rank .In response to

demographic pressures, and because we believe that the un iversity can best

accommodate the needs of the region by facil ita ting the broadest possible distribution

of its teaching , research, and community service, we plan to increase enrollment from

the current leve l of 64,000 students to approximately 100,000 by 2020, thus providing

expanded educat ional opportunitiesboth on-campus and onlineto qualified

students. To accommodate enrollment increases from 35,000 studentsin 1975 to

100,000 in 2020 is no sma ll feat .In terms of resources and infrastructure, during the

past five years we have added nearly seven million square feet of new academicspace,

W itho utanincreasingly

highlyeducated

citizenry, weasanat ion

mayfaceareduction

inourqualityoflife

inthenext generat ion,

som ething unheardof

inthepast.


20/148

[ 20 ]


includ ing more than one m illion square feet of new research space. The infrastructure

required to accommodate such growth requires billions of dollars in cap ita linvestment

and,in the past five years, we have invested $1.5 billion in new facil ities. There remain

$3 .5 billion of additional facili ties yet to come, and the government w ill finance less

than one-third of those.Investment hascome from private sector partners, donors, and

mu ltiple municipa l governments. A master plan is redefining the relat ionships between

the four ASU campuses, the clusters of colleges and schools that comprise each

campus, the university community and its academic programs, and the university and

surrounding metropolitan region . The intent of the master plan is to create campuses

whose bu ildings and grounds reflect the scope and stature of a world-classinstitu tion

and provide for our students a vibrant living and learning environment. Among the

most important planning principles we observe is the integration of the campusinto the

community, which isconsistent w ith our design aspiration of social embeddedness.

Consistent w ith our design aspirations to focus on the ind ividual and transform

society, ASU proudly champions diversity, and the enrollment of students of color since

1996 hasincreased by 81 percent. And , while the freshman class hasincreased in size

by 36 percent during the past five years, enrollment of students of color hasincreasedby 40 percent, w ith students from Hispanic backgrounds now comprising more than

14 percent of undergraduate enro llment. And ,in addition to our Lat ino students, ASU

enrolls roughly 1,500 students from Native American backgrounds, one of the largest

such enrollmentsin the nation .In Ar izona , our twenty-two Native American tribes

speak different dialects that often are correlated w ith one another, but have no

correlat ion w ith either English or Spanish.

Demographic diversificat ion among ASU studentsis accompanied by

different iat ion in wealth . The average family income of the upper qu int ile of our

students exceeds $200,000 per year. The bottom qu int ile has a tenfold lower leve l of

income,less than $20,000 per year. Our institu tion thus enrollsstudents from families

that are wealthy, even by American standards, and others from famil ies that have

virtually no income. The current leve l of investment in undergraduates through

scho larship and gift support is approaching $100 million annually and, for graduate

students, exceeds $50 million . We have great ly expanded both our investmentsin

general financial aid, and in specific programs designed to help low- income Arizona

students attend and graduate. The number of students enro lled from families be low the

poverty line has risen by roughly 500 percent, a number we expect w il lcontinue to

grow, and we have increased the number of Pell Grant recipients by one-third , from


21/148

[ 21 ]


9,200 to 12,300 recipients. A program called ASU Advantage provides tu ition , fees,

room, board, and books(via merit- and need-based grants and scho larships, and work-

study) for students who meet all normal admissionsstandards and whose family

incomes do not exceed $25,000. And all other students at allincome leve ls pay only

about 2 percent of the cost of tuition after merit-based scho larships and need-based

grants. A lthough we expend un iversity resources for programslike ASU Advantage and

receive no support from the state , we are overcom ing financial barriers to access.

As a public metropolitan research un iversity, the profile of the student body,the character of the research enterprise, and the scope of community engagement

differ from that of other institu tions. ASU is a public asset that belongs to all the

citizens of Arizona , and is an active partner w ith the private sector in initiat ives to

enhance the social well-being , economiccompetitiveness,cultural depth, and quality of

life of metropolitan Phoenix and statew ide . Consistent w ith our design aspirations

associated w ith community engagement and societal transformation , ASU offers more

than 1,000 outreach opportunitiesin partnership w ith more than 500 community

organ iza tions across Ar izona . ASU isinvesting in the future of the many d iverse

communities beyond our campuses.

Institution al Red esigntoFacilita teAccesstoExcellenceandAcade micEnterprise

Ar izona State University is mid-point in a decade of unprecedented change and

decisive maturation , position ing itself to emerge as a prominent global un iversity and

comprehensive know ledge enterprise committed to teaching , discovery,creat ivity, and

innovat ion . To promote access to excellence despite the cha llenges of burgeoning

enrollment , we have adopted a d istributed model, operating from four differentiated

campuses of equally high aspiration , w ith each campus representing a planned

clustering of related but academically distinct colleges and schools. We term this

empowerment of colleges and schools school-centrism. The school-centric mode l

produces a federation of unique colleges,schools, academic departments, and

interdisciplinary institutes and centers(schools), and a de liberate and planned

clustering of programs on each campus around a related theme and m ission .Predicated

on devolving intellectual and entrepreneurial responsibil ity to the leve l of the college or

school, the modelcalls for each school to compete for status, not w ith other schools

w ith in the university, but w ith peer schools around the country and around the world.

Consistent w ith the design aspiration of academic enterprise,schools are encouraged to

grow and prosper to the extent of their ind ividual intellectual and market limits.


22/148

[ 22 ]


The reconceptua lized school-centric organiza tion has produced a federat ion of

twenty-one unique interdisciplinary colleges and schools that, together w ith

departments and research institutes and centers,comprise close-knit but d iverse

academiccommunities that are internationalin scope. Consistent w ith thisschool-

centric mode l, we have conceptualized and launched sixteen new interdisciplinary

schools,includ ing the School of G lobalStudies, the School of Human Evolut ion and

Social Change, the School of Materials, and the School of Earth and Space Exploration .

A lthough we are first and foremost committed to educat ing the students of Arizona,

we are equally a cutting-edge discovery organiza tion , focused on contributing to

reg ional economic development through enhanced research and academic programs,

includ ing major interdisciplinary research initiat ivessuch as the Biodesign Institute,

focused on innovat ion in health care , energy and the environment, and national

security; the G lobalInstitute of Susta inabil ity (GIOS),incorporating the worlds first

School of Susta inabil ity; and the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict.

Consistent w ith our ob jective of creat ing differentiated learning environments

that address the needs of ind ividualstudents, we have designated one of our

campuses, for example, to emerge as one of the nationsleading polytechn ics, w ithprograms that provide both a theoretical and practicallearn ing experience, preparing

graduates for direct entry into the workforce. We are advancing two differentiated

schools of engineering , one focused on research and the theoretical aspects of

technology, and the other on practical applicat ion .Similarly, we have established three

schools of educat ion and three schools of management or business, each of which is

bu ilt on a d ifferent learning platform .Some are focused on research,some on

cultivating leadership skil ls, and some on practical applicat ion through learning-by-

do ing . We are overlapping and merg ing these programs to achieve maximum leverage.

At our four campuses, we have instituted a mode l w ith no campus-leve l

governancene ither chancellors nor provosts, but only deans heading colleges and

schools. Deans are responsible for the emergence of ind ividualized learning

environments. We also have made efforts to eliminate the hierarchiza tion or t iering

of campuses. We do not observe a distinction between a good campus, a not-so-

good campus, and a still-lesser campus. A lthough not always exp licit, that tiering

processis very common in American universities, and perhapsin some European

institu tions, and it is a perniciousstructural obstacle to student success. The historic

Tempe campus used to be known as the Main Campus, but now we simp ly refer to it

as Ar izona State University at the Tempe campus.


23/148

[ 23 ]


To fil l out the p icture of our organiza tional reconceptualiza tion to maximize

academic enterprise,I wou ld like to consider some more complex and even rad ical

modes of innovat ion . The first is an example of what we call system innovat ion . The

goalis to have impact on a ma jor socialsystem through innovat ion in mu ltiple yet

interre lated ways, and the system w e are targeting is the P-20 educat ion system. Th isis

a term used in the United States to refer to the whole spectrum of formal educat ion ,

w ith the P standing for pre-kindergarten and the 20 standing for the last year of

formalinstruction in graduate school. However,I w il lsummarize what we are doing as

an institu tion to transform educat ion through the twelfth grade.

First, we are building up our institu tionalcapacity to dea l w ith educat ion .For

instance, we now have not one but three schools of educat ion , each w ith a different

learning platform for the teachers and prospective teachers who enroll. One school has

a focus on preparing leaders in educat ion , another has a focus on technology and

innovat ion , and the third is our more traditionalschool, the high ly ranked Fulton

College of Educat ion . At the same time , we are building new collaborative partnerships

w ith entities outside the university. These range from independent , nonprof it groups

concerned w ith educat ion to publicschool districtsin Ar izona. We also are becom ingmore active in educat ion policy, working w ith public po licy makersin our state

government and w ith national organ iza tions.

Fina lly, we are launching a number of strategicinitiat ives. One is a nonprofit

enterprise called University Pub licSchools,Inc., through which we w il l operate our own

schools to imp lement new ideasin educat ion . Our first prototype, an elementary

school, opened in August 2008. Our schools w il l not be e lite schools for the children of

professors, by the way. They w il l be for students from all backgrounds,includ ing low-

income famil ies and imm igrant households where the primary language is not English.

We want to demonstrate how educat ion can work for every student . We believe that,

when educat ion fallsshort, the main obstacle is not resource constra int , but, rather,

idea constra int .So we are working across mu ltiple dimensionsfrom redesign ing the

structure of our own university to starting actual ne w schoolsin the f ieldin order to

create an entire system of innovat ion for transforming thissocialsystem.

Fostering anEntrepreneurialUn iversity: TowardanEco logyofInnovat ion

To foster the entrepreneurial potent ial of our institu tion , ASU also is trying to

innovate more effective ly by improving core processes that lead to innovat ive output.The obvious example here is technology transfer or intellectual property


24/148

[ 24 ]


commercializa tion . A good bit of what we are do ing in th is area draws on the work of

the Ew ing Marion Kauffman Foundat ion , which hasstudied the issues extensive ly. At

ASU, we are experimenting w ith severa l new approaches at once. To simp lify the

licensing process, for example, we have introduced the use of licensing templates and

master sponsored research agreements, which can reduce the need to negotiate over

terms and conditions.In terms of strategic ob jectives, we are manag ing our IP for deal

flow density rather than for revenuein other words, to maximize the number of

inventions and discoveries actually moved into use,instead of trying to maximize near-

term income from fewer and b igger deals. We also are experimenting w ith faculty

entrepreneurship incentives, allocat ing the income so as to give faculty inventors a

greater incentive for starting companies.

A systemsinnovat ion approach is reflected in our institu tion-w ide campaign ,

called University as Entrepreneur. The overarching objective of thisinitiat ive is

perpetualinstitu tionalinnovat ion . Toward this end, we seek to inspire and enable both

students and faculty members to innovate.In practice, we actually generate new

enterpriseswhether for-profit startup companies or new venturesin research oreducat ion , or useful new projects of any kind . As you can see from the chart,creat ing

UNIVERSITY

ASENTREPRENEUR}

SKYSONG

INITIATIVES

DISCIPLINES

ENTREPRENEURS

GLOBAL COMPANIES

ARTS, MEDIA & ENGINEERING

p.a.v.e.

ENTREPRENEUR ADVANTAGE PROJECT

ENTREPRENEURSHIP ANDINNOVATION RESEARCH

EDSON STUDENTINITIATIVE

AZANGELS

TECH VENTURECLINIC

ASUTECHNOPOLIS

AZTE

ARIZONA TECHNOLOGY

INVESTOR FORUMDIGITAL MEDIAHEALTHCARE INNOVATION

INNOVATION SPACE

INVESTSW

LAW

BUSINESS

JOURNALISM

JUSTICE & SOCIAL INQUIRY

THEATRE& FILM

SOCIAL WORKANTHROPOLOGY

GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES

SCIENCES

ENGINEERING

MUSICNURSING

ARTDESIGN


25/148

[ 25 ]


an entrepreneurial un iversity is a mu lti-leve l task. We start at the foundation w ith our

academic disciplines. We want to engage a ll of them, from the arts and humanities and

socialsciences, to the naturalsciences and engineering and the professionalschools.

Instead of just teaching courses in entrepreneurship that would reach all of the

disciplines, we have decided to embed entrepreneurial opportunities and learning

environments w ith in each of them.So our nursing college now has an innovat ion and

entrepreneurship center. Our journalism school has a ma jor industry-funded center for

innovat ion in the news media.In every school and discipline , there is now a set of

dynamic mechanisms for making innovat ion something that lives habitually w ith in the

context of the d iscipline .

At the next leve l up , we launch and facili tate a series of initiat ives geared to

assisting entrepreneurial ventures that come out of work in the d isciplines. We believe

there is va lue in fostering large numbers of initiat ives because,inevitably,some w ill fa il .

In th is manner, we allow naturalselection to demonstrate which have merit. One that

hasshown particular merit is the Edson Student Initiat ive . Here we have raised an

endowed fund to finance companiesstarted by students. The students own the

companies and the university expects no return other than see ing the companies takeoff. Th isis an idea we picked up from Tec de Monterrey in Mexico, and it is working

wellin metropolitan Phoenix: We are incubat ing about eighty student-led companies

right now. Another initiat ive that has worked well is ASU Technopolis, which brings

together entrepreneurs, venture cap ita lists, and creat ive thinkersin the Phoen ix region .

ASU Technopo lis encouragesinnovat ion and economic development by providing

fledgling technology and life sciences entrepreneurs w ith skil ls and strategies necessary

to convert ideasinto commercially v iab le businesses. Guidance is ava ilab le for product

development , businessinfrastructure development , proof-of-concept cap ita l formation ,

revenue development , and access to funding . Technopolisstimu lates economicdevelopment by offering a series of rigorous programs that educate,coach, and

network local entrepreneurs. Through this program, approximate ly 500 early-stage

companies have received coaching and mentoring , and they have raised about $75

million in private investment cap ita l.

The top leve lin the chart islabeled SkySong, which requiressome

clarificat ion .It is not uncommon for universities to establish research parks, which begin

as entrepreneurial ventures but often turn out to be more about real estate. We

decided to make our enterprise more than the typ ical real estate project by expand ing

the vision . To position metropolitan Phoenix and the state of Arizona ascompet itive in


26/148

[ 26 ]


the global know ledge economy, ASU conceptua lized and designed a hub for

know ledge-driven industries, technology innovat ion , and commercial activity.In

collaboration w ith the C ity of Scot tsda le and the ASU Foundat ion , ASU established

SkySong, named for an icon icshade structure that is the signature architectural element

of the complex. We enlisted a public-sector partner and a private-sector partner and,

instead of just providing space for locally grown compan ies, decided also to recru it

large global and foreign-based companies that cou ld engage in beneficial exchange

w ith the university and itsstartups.SkySong is a $500 million world-class assembly

po int for know ledge and technology research and commerce. W ith 1.5 million square

feet of densely packed and creative educat ional, research,cultural, retail , and residential

space,SkySong w il l be the nucleus for an entire open-ended community of

entrepreneurs dedicated to innovat ion and learn ing .

We have instituted a number of institutional po licies that promote

entrepreneurship and make it easy to move ideasinto action ,consistent w ith the policies

mentioned earlier relat ing to intellectual property commercialization . Conversely, po liciesthat discourage entrepreneurial behavior should be minimized. Unfortunately, many

INNOVATION

IN

FRASTRUCTURE

TYPES OF ACTORS

}NETWORKS

SKYSONG

POLICIES

NODES

DISCIPLINES

REGIONAL

FUNCTIONAL

MASTER SPONSORED RESEARCH AGREEMENTS SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE IP

DEAL FLOW DENSITYLICENSING TEMPLATES

FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP INCENTIVES

ENTREPRENEURS

ASU

INCUBATION

GLOBAL COMPANIES


27/148

[ 27 ]


un iversities have a wide range of such constra intsthe kinds of policies that can inh ibit

decision-making , deaden creative think ing , and turn deansinto paper-pushers. Changing

the policy structure of the institution is an ongoing project that goes hand in hand w ith

changing institutionalculture. There have certainly been ind ividuals who have disagreed

with the objective of foster ing an entrepreneurial un iversity, or who did not see the value

in it, and we have resolved the issue in a number of ways. We have conducted meetings

and discussions to resolve concerns, and, as we advance, we attract new faculty and staff

who are aligned w ith the vision and want to be part of it.In my six years as president, we

have been able to move forward sign ificantly.

Fina llyand thisis very importantan entrepreneurial un iversity is high ly

networked.It hascontacts and working alliances with entrepreneurs and industries, and

with allsorts of ind ividuals and groupsconcerned with innovat ion and growth. Along

with cutting-edge research, un iversities that aspire to have broad impact are marked by

a very high degree of connectivity, both internal and external.Such an ecosystem of

networked connectivity creates many pathways for people to move ideas from

conception to reality. When all of the elements are working together, one perceives a

we ll-rounded innovation infrastructure, and the university becomes part of a largerecology ofinnovation.

AnInvestmentModelforAcademicEnterprises

Along w ith organizational redesign comes the need for reconceptualization of

the institutional mindset .Like other publicinstitutions, ASU derives the majority of its

operating budget from the State of Arizona, which hasled it in the past to conceive of

itself as an agency of the state government. But as un iversities reinvent themselves as

academic enterprises nav igating in the competitive academic marketplace,it isimperative

that they assume responsibility for their advancement consistent w ith the paradigm of an

investment model. W ith the investment model at ASU, we make the case that if either

the private sector or the pub licis w illing to lend us financial or politicalsupport , we

promise to work to deliver a specified return on investment. The simp le argument for

investment of taxpayer dollarsin a public un iversity proceeds according to the follow ing

log ic: If the appropriat ionscommittee of the state leg islature investsspecified resources,

the university promises to work to deliver an agreed-upon return. W ithout such an

investment, there can be no return on investment. Here is the negative impact from not

making that investment. Here is the impact of that non-return on the overa ll enterprise

the statethat isin your charge. The same argument can be made for investment from

the federal government, business and industry, and foundations and ind ividuals.


28/148

[ 28 ]


When we have made requests for tuition adjustments, we present it as an

argument for investment. This past year, we published a sixty-page white paper on the

return on investment to a family making investmentsin tu ition for their children, or

students making investment in themselves, and we calculated the annual rate of return to

the ind ividual over his or her lifetime at 12 percent. A college educat ion is the most

sign ificant investment that anyone can make over that time frame. When we requested

$233 million from the C ity of Phoenix to establish an ASU campus downtown, we made

it on an investment basis. We went to the city w ith our vision of what we want the

un iversity to become, and said, If you make thisinvestment in us, we w ill be able to start

a campus on twenty-two acres of land in downtown Phoenix. Here is what we w ill

commit and what our schools w ill be able to achieve w ith these new facilities. It is

diff icult to refute such sound log ic.

When one considers the effort required to build th is new kind of university, one

perfectly reasonable question that may arise is: How do you pay for it? The answer to that

question hasseveral parts. We have had to rethink and make ad justments to our overall

financialstructure, as one would w ith any major program of reconceptualization .In some

cases, new initiat ives have been launched on an entrepreneurial basisthat is to say, theyreceive initialseed funding , but beyond that they must raise or generate their own funds.

But here is the best part: We have found that this model of the entrepreneurial un iversity

attractsinvestmentfrom others.It is a model that invites w ide-ranging participation and

promises and delivers w ide-ranging benefits.If an institution can put forth an

entrepreneurial model of this type,ind ividuals and corporations and foundations and

governments w ill validate it by investing in the vision .

To summarize a few major investments: The Kauffman Foundation has given us a

$5 million grant for our effort , which we leveraged to attract another $25 million in

matching funds. Ent ities of regional government, with whom we had no financial

relat ionship in the past, have put in sign ificant funding: the $233 million grant from the

City of Phoenix and a $100 million grant from the city of Scottsda le.Private ind ividuals

have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to create endowments for venture funds, for

other initiat ives, or for particular schools and colleges at the university. A ltogether,in

advancing this model, we have been able to generate about $1 .2 billion per year of new

resources for the institution in the last six years.

This model puts usin a much better position to compete for major research

funding because,in addition to basic research capability, we can demonstrate the

entrepreneurial capability to move the research forward and develop it for applicat ion .


29/148

[ 29 ]


Thisis valuable to sponsors who want to see not only the discovery of new know ledge

but also real-world results.Recently, for example, we have attracted sign ificant investment

for new approaches to attacking cancer. The government of the Duchy of Luxembourg is

partnering w ith us on a $200 million effort targeted to lung cancer, and we were one of

three institutions to w in high ly competitive grants for new cancer research authorized by

the U.S. Congress. Also, the U.S. Army has funded a $110 million project to develop a

th in-f ilm flexible display that would be wearable on the body or d isposab le like paper.

Aga in, they chose ASU because they believe that our facultyworking w ith the thirteen

companies that we have brought into our facility w ith usw ill be able not only to

determine the scientific pathway to this technology but also be able to actually develop it.

TowardEntrepreneurialUniversitiesCapableof PerpetualInnovation

The very identity of the university is at stake today and each institution must

focus on establishing its own unique and differentiated identity. The question , What is a

un iversity? is one that every speaker at thisconference isin some respect addressing .

What are these institutionscalled universities, and how are they different from other

institutions and organizationsin our society? And, more to the point , why do universitiesneed to assert their difference from other institutions and insist on their status as

enterprises? The greatest un iversities that exist on the planet have emerged in America

during the past several hundred years, and especially during the past century. All of these

institutionsshare a set of characteristics that are consistent w ith the great universities that

have emerged in the past. A principa lcharacteristic of great universitiesis that not one of

these institutionsconceives of itself as either a corporation or an agency, by which I mean

a standardized unit of government. All of them have emerged as enterprises.Some are

public and owned by collectivessuch as the State of California or the State of M ichigan.

And some are private and self-perpetuated by groups of committed stewards who , overthe course of centuries, have guided their institutions to greatness.

A number of environmental forces are, or should be ,inf luencing how each of us

redesigns our universities go ing forward. Different institutions may succeed by responding

differently, but there are some strategies that are almost sure to fail. One is to rely on

existing approaches, trying to advance the university asit has been advanced in the past.

Another is the insular approach,simp ly perpetuating the university asif it is a remote

monastery immune to outside forces. The temptation is great for universities to isolate

themselvesin abstractions, perpetuating their institutionalcultures w ith their own

sociolog ies and vocabularies, focused primarily on their own dynamics and their own


30/148

[ 30 ]


constra ints.It isincumbent on universities as never before to help solve the pressing

globalissues of our time: populat ion growth,climate change, national and international

security. The scale of know ledge transfer must increase as the demand for new

know ledge increases.It is essential to realize that continued economic growth depends

upon innovation and that the global economy operates according to the forces of

creative destruction , described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter nearly a century

ago. The only way to move forward is to replace what you have with something better

to innovate and to create new technolog ies and products and processes that replace

those that already exist. We must accelerate the pace of our academicculture to move in

sync with the needs of the world. And the ultimate driver iscompetition . The

globalization of American universitiesis accelerating because of the rise of global

competition . Globalization is the outcome of hundreds of years of connectivity through

trade and the transfer of know ledge between cultures, and, as the nations of the world

become more deeply entrenched in the process of globalization , un iversities have no

alternative but to embrace it.

The industrialized nations peaked some time ago in their capacity to continue to

enhance cap ita lcreation , both in terms of raw numbers and access to that cap ita lcreation

process by allsegments of our society.Several decades ago, the UnitesStates was the

worlds dominant economic force. But now we face a cha llenge to our identity because

we must look toward the future as on ly one of a number of major economic powers,

each interrelated and cooperating w ith others, but, at the same time ,competing in

completely new ways. Continued economic growth must remain an overarching objective,

because if we stop grow ing economically the social outcomes w ill be dire.If we do not

embrace perpetualinnovationand by thisI mean innovat ion in un iversity design itself

not just the products of the university but also our collective standard of living will decline ,

our way of life will be threatened, and opportunities for the success of future generations

will be diminished. The scale and speed of know ledge transfer is unprecedented , but we

must ask ourselves where the new entrepreneurialinstitutions are that w ill teach our

students how to thrive in th is new environment. Where is the next great entrepreneurial

un iversity that w ill prepare the next generation for perpetualinnovation?


31/148

[ 31 ]


Building aG lobalUn iversity

by Alan MertenPresident, George Mason University

President of George Mason Universitysince 1996, A lan Merten haschampioned globaldevelopment throughout hiscareeroften while working across the disciplines of technology, business,and education. After earning aPhD incomputerscience at the University of Wisconsin, he heldpositions at several universitiesin the UnitedStates, Hungary, andFrance. He hasserved on many

boards andcommissions for governments and industries; in the UnitedStates, he waschair of theNationalResearch Councils Committee on Workforce Needsin Information Technology, and a memberof the Virginia GovernorsBlueRibbon Commission on Higher Education. During his presidency atGeorge Mason, the university hosted theinaugural World Congress on Information Technology and hasexpanded its global presence in all fields.

In the summ er of 1974, my family and I l ived in Budap est. At the t ime ,I

worked for the United Nations Development Program , teaching

Hungarians how to teach computer science . About two months into our

stay,

our the n-tw o-year-old daugh ter asked her moth er and me to buy her acat. We decl ined,saying that she could get a cat when we were home .

Her response wassimple: We are home .

Nearly th irty-five yearslater,Istil lsmile at that memory, but I also have come

to realize that Me lissa was right. We were home.Sally, our son Eric, Melissa, and I were

living our livesin Budapest and carrying on our business much as we had done in the

Un ited States.From the perspective of a two-year-old child, there was no difference.

I am fortunate to be the president of an institu tion of higher learning in the

Un ited States that boasts more than 30,000 students, offers more than 150 degree


32/148

[ 32 ]


programs, hascampusesin three locat ions w ith in the state of Virg inia,is establishing a

fourth campusin the United Arab Emirates and a branch campusin East Asia, and has

reciprocal and exchange agreements w ith sister institu tions throughout Asia and other

parts of the world. George Mason University is,indeed, a global un iversity.

Consequent ly, whether I am sitt ing in my office in Fairfax, Va., or meeting w ith faculty

in the UAE,Iconsider myself to be at home. At all of our locat ions, we strive to provide

students w ith the best educat ion we can , and help enhance the economicstrengths of

our various reg ions.

I w ish to address today the cha llenges and merits of becom ing what Icall the

global un iversity. By thisI mean a university that is engaged in many or all key areas

of the world, and uses a w ide range of technolog ies and communicat ion channels that

link ind ividuals,localities, national un its, mu lti-national businesses, and trans-national

reg ions.Such a university draws upon faculty,students, and administrators who are

know ledgeab le and adaptable enough to embrace th is new paradigm , and who are

w illing to lead and cooperate at a llleve ls. A global un iversity does not exist in the ivory

tower of yesterday.It is an entity w ith ever-grow ing and reciprocallinkages to other

entities of equalinf luence and growth potential,includ ing corporations, domestic andforeign municipa lities, and governments.

At George Mason , we strive to have a ll these attributes. But, we neither

embarked on the mission nor reached our present stage overnight. Our process has

been long and complex.I w il l try to describe it brief ly here from severa l perspectives,

includ ing the fundamenta lsteps that universities genera lly should take if they want to

become globalasI be lieve many want to doand the cha llenges of imp lementation .

WhyGoG lob al?

To begin, why should a university go global, and why does the world need

such globalinstitutions? Ican answer these questions by draw ing on our experience at

George Mason .

Our transition to a globalinstitu tion began in the early 1980s when the

un iversity leadership made concerted efforts to think beyond standard academic

organ iza tions.In the early stages, th is meant develop ing cross-d isciplinary programs.

One graduate program in internationalcommerce, for example,linked culture, po litics,

management , economics, and law. A ll of the academic disciplines were encouraged to

bu ild more links across existing boundaries. At the graduate leve l, th is often meantexp loring niche zones between disciplines for new programs.


33/148

[ 33 ]


These efforts he lped to open the way for the next stage of the metamorphosis.

As we reached across disciplinary lines, we realized that it also was necessary to reach

across national borders. We saw the world becom ing more flat , in the words of

ThomasFriedman, and, of course, more competitive . A lso, we recognized that issues

were emerging that go beyond the concerns of any one country or continent .Issues of

th is kind , whether they are economic, environmental, or communicat ive , are global

cha llenges that only can be addressed from a coord inated,cooperative global

perspective . Confronting them adequately would require the combined efforts of

leaders, th inkers,scientists, educators,communicators, and scho lars in all disciplines

throughout the world.In short, we realized that, to become a sign ificant institution of

higher learning in the twenty-first century, our strengths and vision needed to match

the needs of the g lobalcommunity. We needed to be active partners rather than simp ly

good neighbors.

Since the early 1980s, of course, much has been written and said about global

competition . Yet even th iscompetition requires greater cooperation if it is to persist as a

force for the good of a ll. As nations throughout the world strive to advance their

economies by producing new and increasing ly complex goods and services, they needhigh ly qualified workers who understand global markets.For competition among

nations to be susta ined in a hea lthy way, new trans-national agreements, regulat ions,

and procedures must be established. A ll of the crucial work demandsind ividuals who

are well-educated for it, by colleges and universities.

Th is dynamic has never been truer than it is today. Un iversities are at the

forefront of ma jor socialchanges. And ,increasing ly, when it comes to globalchange ,

un iversities are expected to be at the forefront. We at George Mason feel the urgency

of globaliza tion from our state and federal governments, in terms of their funding

decisions and the programming they w ish to support . We feel it in our interactions w ith

local businesses and technology communities. We feelit in the requests from students

and their famil ies for programs of study that provide understanding of, and

competencies for dealing w ith , many global issues.

The question is not whether an institu tion should respond to these signals

from its ma jor stakeho lders, but how and when .


34/148

[ 34 ]


The PathtoBecoming G lob al

From our experience, the primary stepsin any transition to a global

un iversity need to include:

(1) establishing new priorities that recognize the importance of g lobal

understanding;

(2) realign ing resources to promote growth in the appropriate places;

(3) providing the intellectualleadership for academic research and scho larship

that seeks realsolut ions to global problems;

(4) ensuring that the institutions global efforts are well-coordinated; and

(5) embracing the wave of globaliza tion so that any ind ividuals or programs

that are not initially part of th is movement have opportunities to adapt.

When necessary, people must be given opportunities to reinvent

themselvesso they are not left behind .

Let me cite a few examp les of how George Mason has attempted to ride the

wave of global educat ion . These are outlined in a forthcom ing book by our provost,

Peter Stearns.1

Our general educat ion programs now require coursesin global understanding .

We have geography courses that are taught in Spanish, Arabic, and other languages.

We offer educat ion courses to foreign teachers of Chinese and Arabic. We offer

electronically shared sociology courses w ith the Higher EconomicsSchoolin Moscow.

We offer globalcourses in management, health , and environmentalscience and policy.

Nearly 20 percent of our undergraduatesstudy abroad, and our school of management

has a very successfu lstudy-abroad MBA program.

Other examplesinclude a memo of understanding w ith a university in NorthernNigeria in the area of conflict resolut ion; a one-two-one agreement w ith Chinese

un iversities whereby undergraduates from China come to Mason for two years, then

return home for a dual degree; and an intensive two-week visit by communicat ion

students to England each January to work w ith public re lat ions professionals and gain a

broader understanding of thisindustry.

These programs and numerous others operate w ith in an environment in which

6 percent of our students, or nearly 1,800 young men and women , are from other

1.Stearns,P.(2009). Educat ing Global C itizensin Co lleges and Universities: Challenges and Opportunities.Routledge: NY, NY.


35/148

[ 35 ]


countries. Collective ly, they represent 125 nations. We are one of the most diverse

un iversitiesin the United States. Th isis, w ithout question , one of our great strengths.

The diversity of our students adds an inva luable richness to our classes. W ith their

different histories,life experiences, and know ledge , they bring perspectives that

otherw ise would not be present.In particular, our American-born counterparts,

includ ing teachers, are the better for it.

But the transition to a global un iversity is not necessarily an easy one.It

requires an uncompromising institutionalcommitment that calls for the buy-in ofeveryone . Assum ing thisis achieved, other hurdles remain. They range from fund ing

the variousinitiat ives and changes, to administrative realignments, to dealing w ith

uncontrollab le environmentscreated by international po litics and tensions. These are

rea lities, but they are not insurmountable. George Mason University isless than forty

years old, yet we have moved to a point where our connectivity is not just w ith our

own region or state , but w ith the world.

I often am asked about the role of the president in such a transition .It is vita l

that the university president set the tone for the institu tion to accept the mantle of

global. The president should be a combination spokesperson ,cheerleader, and

architect. He or she must be active and visible in lending support,so that the staff and

faculty can see high-leve lcommitment to moving the institu tion in a global direction .

Words are important, but they must be complemented by action , as people pay close

attent ion to what the president actually does and even where the president goes. At

George Mason , for instance, the Office of InternationalPrograms and Services has an

annua l program called International Week, and I always make a point of attending as

many of the events asIcan .It also is vita l that the president bring together the right

team of scho lars and professionals to imp lement and facil itate globalinitiat ives. Mason

is blessed w ith a strong provost and set of academic deans who play important rolesin

th is movement.

George Mason University now has made the transition to being a global

un iversity. Yet thisshift is not something that can be done and then simp ly crossed off

a to-do list, the way one does a list of errands on a weekend. Maintaining this

commitment requires as much effort as the initial decision to make it. At the same time ,

the realities of our ever-shrink ing and ever-cha llenging world demand it.I wou ld defy

anyone to name one globalcha llenge that does not have educat ion as part of its

solut ion . Th is is why universities must become leadersin he lping connect as many

entities throughout the world as possible.


36/148

[ 36 ]

Documents

The Future of the Research University: Meeting the Global Challenges of the 21st Century