Evaluating the competitiveness of leading world universities and research fields – the idea, significance and practice

Translated from original article (authored by Qiu Jun Ping, Zhao Rong Ying, Ma Rui Min, Niu Pei Yuan, Cheng Ni, Li Ai Chun and published by Wuhan University Research Center for China Science Evaluation)

Executive Summary:
Published in the United States, Essential Science Indicators (ESI) has become an international, high quality, authoritative tool for evaluation. Recently, we utilized the ESI as raw data and conducted a scientific, rational, objective and fair evaluation of the competitiveness of world famous universities and research centers. We produced 29 rankings, such as “World Universities Research Competitiveness Rankings,” 22 individual versions by research field of “World Research Organizations Competitiveness Rankings (includes universities and research centers)” and “World Universities Research Competitiveness Sub-Indexes Rankings.” Results of the evaluations reveal that China (Mainland) ranks 20th in the world for research competitiveness, advancing one spot from last year; 49 Chinese universities entered the ESI rated top 1% most referenced universities of the world, making up approximately 4.1% of the 1207 universities in that category, an increase of 18 institutions over the past year. These results are worthy of affirmation. However, the comparison of the overall rankings of these institutions of higher learning illustrate that Chinese universities still lag considerably behind the world’s leading universities and the mission of building a world leading university is an arduous mission. The gap is especially prominent in terms of high quality, world leading research organizations and production and their global impact. But to compare with last year’s evaluation, our country’s overall capabilities, universities and research field competitiveness have obvious improvements. This shows that hard work pays off, and our country’s goals of building world leading universities and fields of research are completely achievable. This evaluation is meaningful in terms of guidance and reference for relevant leadership and management in our country’s government, each university and research center and the broad spectrum people involved in the fields of science, technology and education.

(Translator’s note: I will eventually translate the entire article and refine the translated portions. For now, I prefer to highlight some of the points and rankings.)

The overall gap between Chinese universities and leading universities of the world is very large. From the chart, we can see that five countries: the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada and Japan already make up 80% of the 100 top ranked universities, nearly 70% of the 200 top ranked universities and almost 66% of the top 300 ranked universities. From that, we can tell that these countries possess an overwhelming dominant proportion of top research institutions of the world and possess robust strength in research. Our country doesn’t have any university in the top 100 ranked universities and has two in the top 200, namely Peking University (192) and Tsinghua University (196), accounting for 1% of the total; in the top 400 we have eight, namely Peking University (192) , Tsinghua University (196),Zhejiang University(248), Shanghai Jiaotong University(252), Fudan University(257),Nanking University(271),University of Science and Technology of China(273) and Jilin University(382),representing 2% of the total. In the top 1000 we have 39 universities (3.9%), top 1200, 48 universities(4%). This reflects the relatively inferior position of our universities in the world and our lack of outstanding research teams and systems necessary for boosting our research competitiveness. This is disadvantageous to our aim of raising the overall level of our country’s research, especially with regards to building a batch of world leading universities and research organizations.

—

Chart 3: Top 30 Country/Region in Research Competitiveness
(Translator’s note: Abridged)

1. United States (100)
2. United Kingdom (44.21)
3. Germany (43.96)
4. Japan (44.68)
5. Canada
6. Netherlands
7. Switzerland
8. Italy
9. France
10. Sweden
11. Denmark
12. Australia
13. Israel
14. Belgium
15. Finland
16. Spain
17. Austria
18. Norway
19. Ireland
20. China
21. South Korea
22. SAR Hong Kong
23. Poland
24. Hungary
25. New Zealand
26. South Africa
27. China Taiwan
28. Brazil
29. Chile
30. Czech Republic

Chart 5: Top Ten Universities of the world in terms of research competitiveness
1. Harvard
2. University of Texas
3. University of Washington (Seattle)
4. Stanford
5. Johns Hopkins
6. University of California (Berkeley)
7. UCLA
8. Tokyo University
9. University of Michigan
10. MIT

114.Australian National University
115.University of Sheffield
116. National University of Singapore
117.Rockefeller University
118.Iowa State University

192.Peking University

308.University of Athens
309.Rensslelaer Polytechnic Institute
310.Nanyang Technological University
311.University of Saskatchewan
312.University of Vermont

A difficult strategic decision, made with an eye on the future

Link to original Lianhe Zaobao opinion piece 放眼未来的艰难决策 published April 12th 2007

In recent days, the government’s introduction of a pay hike for civil servants, including a large-scale increase for ministers and top officials, has generated intense debate in the parliament and greater than usual response from the public.

We would like to first point out that it is completely expected that in an increasingly open society, scrutiny or even suspicion is applied to a new policy. Not only do such phenomena exemplify the open and transparent nature of our political institutions, they reflect the growth of our people’s conscious desire to monitor our government. Regardless of perspective, we feel that it is a good sign.

That said, should the ministers’ and civil servants’ pay be increased after all? As the media, we have a deep understanding and respect of various viewpoints. Frankly speaking, both the pro-hike and anti-hike perspectives have their rational points.

Specifically, from the angle of heartlanders, the remuneration of Singapore’s ministers were already very high – it could be said that in contrast with certain portions of the population, the difference is heaven and earth. In a situation where the national average income has not seen a corresponding increase, what calls for the large scale increase in minister pay? We feel that such questioning is more common among the masses.

From the government’s perspective, the attraction and retention of the most capable talent to the ranks of civil service through high salaries is precisely an overarching issue of national significance. Suppose the government falls short of talent, Singapore’s unique model of development would have to be discontinued, and we would find it hard to sustain the favorable existing policies – as a result, we would lose our extended position of peace and prosperity.

Honestly, between the two perspectives, there is no right or wrong – it is merely a difference of perspective. If we’re not in the position, we wouldn’t concern ourselves with affairs of governance. (Translator note: A quote from Confucius. 不在其位，不谋其政。) The man on the street’s main concern is his immediate everyday life. He naturally relates the minister pay rise to his own salary. We have no reason to demand that everyone sees the issue from the scale of the nation’s future. However, as responsible members of the media, we feel the need to discuss our own views.

We have to say that in any country, whenever a well thought decision is introduced, there must be strategic and long term considerations backing it. Specifically, the response from parts of the population, even the emotional responses, are understandable, but if we were to stagnant at this superficial level of sensibility, then we would not be able to recognize the rational intentions and deep long term thinking that has gone into the decision.

Every Singaporean must admit that in our intensely competitive, globalised world, Singapore has limited advantages for survival and progress. Our greatest edge is our unique and effective system of government. Only if this system doesn’t regress, will we have assurance of happiness. To maintain the vitality of this system, we have no other choice but to enrich it with talent.

Taking it a step further – Singapore is a small country with a tiny population and scarce natural resources, what did we depend on to advance into the ranks of developed nations? And what resources do we have to persist among such nations? The answer is as stated previously – that is to have a set of very effective systems and institutions, to best utilize talent, especially a team of honest, law-abiding, highly efficient civil servants who are willing to bear any burden. (任劳任怨)

There will be some who would differ and feel that since they are civil servants, why would they require such generous renumeration? Our understanding is: we cannot allow our views of civil service to stagnant at such a narrow level. Without exaggeration, regardless of the country of comparison, in terms of desire to serve the public, our cabinet ministers and civil servants of all levels would not pale in comparison – public servants indeed.

Since the responsibilities of civil servants is service to the people, they must uphold a higher moral standard and have a sense of mission. However, people cannot expect them to be like saints who distance themselves from the mortal world. Instead, the more talented they are, the less the government should allow them to feel shortchanged on material rewards, rather, they should be made to feel the satisfaction and glory of being civil servants. That is the true way of caring for and appreciating talent.

A frequent phenomenon is such that in any country, when a long term strategic decision is first implemented, it frequently fails to garner the understanding and support it deserves. The argument over the pay hike is such an example.

From the angle of democracy, introducing this measure at such a time is evidently not a popular move, but the government persists. Solely from this point, we can tell the decision maker’s abilities, soul and long sightedness. So long as it is to the long term benefit of the nation and its people, even if it is not accepted in the short term, even if it is misunderstood, the government must be determined in carrying it out. Frankly, Singapore’s continued success has much to do with that. This is a timelessly credible government with achievements visible and lauded by everyone. We have no reason to suspect the motives of this decision, but we have every reason to hope it attracts more talent and bring us to a higher level – for the benefit of the people.