Un subiect educational de importanta ESENTIALA a fost abordat, DOAR in Studioul BZI LIVE, cu trei distinsi membri ai comunitatii educationale din cadrul Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza

 Miercuri, 27 februarie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00, in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE a fost programata o editie – dialog riguroasa, actuala si consistenta la care a fost CONECTAT publicul tanar, profesorii si mediul academic national • Un subiect educational de importanta ESENTIALA a fost abordat cu trei distinsi membri ai comunitatii educationale din cadrul celei mai vechi institutii moderne de invatamant superior a Romaniei – Alexandru Ioan Cuza – UAIC • In prim-plan au fost: conf. univ. dr. Ruxandra Ciulu de la Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor – FEAA si coordonatoare a masteratului (in Limba engleza) de Management pe Resurse Umane, prof. univ. dr. Dorel Lucanu – Facultatea de Informatica si, de asemenea, coordonator al unui masterat in Limba engleza respectiv lect. univ. dr. Marius Apetrii – Facultatea de Matematica si implicat pe un masterat, tot pe important limba de circulatie internationala • Alaturi de cei trei universitari au fost dialogate idei despre importanta si rolul unei asemenea forme de studii predate in Engleza, ce sanse au absolventii in insertia pe piata muncii, relatia cu studentii sau masteranzii, proiectele pe care le au in plan • Mai departe, cei trei profesori universitari au dialogt despre importanta internationalizarii Universitatii Cuza, despre propria viziune educationala • Emisiunea completa cu cei trei universitari poate fi urmarita AICI:

Pe 27 februarie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00, in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE a fost programata o editie – dialog riguroasa, actuala si consistenta la care a fost CONECTAT publicul tanar, profesorii si mediul academic national. Un subiect educational de importanta ESENTIALA a fost abordat cu trei distinsi membri ai comunitatii educationale din cadrul celei mai vechi institutii moderne de invatamant superior a Romaniei – Alexandru Ioan Cuza (UAIC). In prim-plan au fost: conf. univ. dr. Ruxandra Ciulu de la Facultatea de Economie si Administrarea Afacerilor (FEAA) si coordonatoare a masteratului (in Limba engleza) de Management pe Resurse Umane, prof. univ. dr. Dorel Lucanu – Facultatea de Informatica si, de asemenea, coordonator al unui masterat in Limba engleza respectiv lect. univ. dr. Marius Apetrii – Facultatea de Matematica si implicat pe un masterat, tot pe important limba de circulatie internationala.

Alaturi de cei trei universitari au fost dialogate idei despre importanta si rolul unei asemenea forme de studii predate in Engleza, ce sanse au absolventii in insertia pe piata muncii, relatia cu studentii sau masteranzii, proiectele pe care le au in plan. Mai departe, cei trei profesori universitari au dialogt despre importanta internationalizarii Universitatii Cuza, despre propria viziune educationala. Dincolo de toate acestea, cadrele didactice au prezentat si deficientele pe care le-au constatat la nivel de sistem educativ legislativ national, faptul ca e din ce in ce mai greu sa atraga resursa umana care sa ramana in mediul universitar, relatia cu marile companii. Emisiunea completa cu cei trei universitari poate fi urmarita AICI: 
Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași

Editie BZI LIVE cu un profesor universitar iesean care face minuni, printre inventiile sale, in recuperarea medicala dupa accidente grave

Joi, 28 februarie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00, in lumina reflectoarelor Studioului BZI LIVE este invitat unul dintre profesorii universitari, inventatorii si oamenii creativi care, prin ceea ce realizeaza, face MINUNI in recuperarea medicala dupa accidente sau probleme grave de sanatate.

Un profesor de la Universitatea Tehnica din Iasi a reusit sa faca asa ceva. Gestul sau este memorabil

Este vorba de prof. univ. dr. ing. Marian Poboroniuc, de la Facultatea Inginerie Electrica, Energetica si Informatica Aplicata (FIEEIA) a Universitatii Tehnice (TUIASI) Gheorghe Asachi din Iasi. Pentru acesta, tot ceea ce inseamna Inteligenta Artificiala (IA), realizarea unor mecanisme aparte care ne pot ajuta, atit acasa sau la locul de munca, recuperarea medicala nu mai reprezinta un secret. De reamintit ca, in anul 2016, profesorul Poboroniuc a inventat o manusa mecatronica pentru bolnavii de paralizie. „Acesta a inventat o manusa robotica, unica in lume, menita sa ajute persoanele care au ramas cu paralizii in urma unui atac cerebral vascular. Cu ajutorul acesteia, pacientii se pot recupera mult mai repede decat cu terapia clasica.

Profesorul lucreaza impreuna cu alti patru specialisti de la facultatea noastra, dar si de la doua spitale din Iasi si din Cluj-Napoca. Ideea i-a venit profesorului Marian Poboroniuc acum zece ani, iar pana acum manusa mecatronica a fost testata pe 12 pacienti”, au transmis reprezentantii Politehnicii iesene. Pe de alta parte, prof univ. dr. ing. Poboroniuc  a aratat ca „am avut un pacient care nu mai putea de patru ani sa si miste mana, iar dupa 12 sedinte a reusit sa faca singur o miscare de extensie a pumnului. Aceste echipamente pot fi puse intr-un spital de reabilitare, de recuperare sau clinici de recuperare sportiva”.

Pe de alta parte, important de menionat ca in cel putin trei luni de terapie clasica combinata cu sedinte cu aceasta manusa, un pacient ar putea ajunge la recuperare completa. „Echipa profesorului Poboroniuc urmareste acum sa breveteze inventia, sa gaseasca o firma care sa produca acest tip de echipament, care ar putea costa si pana la 7.000 de euro si in trei ani ar putea fi pe piata. Insa, Marian Poboroniuc si echipa sa nu se opresc aici, urmatoarea inventie fiind o casca ce ar transmite impulsurile nervoase ale creierului catre maini.

Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași

 

Concert extraordinar de muzica si poezie „Din parinti pentru parinti”, sustinut de Mircea Rusu Band si actorul Dorel Visan, la Universitatea „Cuza” din Iasi

Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” (UAIC) din Iasi, în parteneriat cu Primaria Municipiului Iasi, organizeaza maine, vineri, 1 martie 2019, la ora 17:00, în Aula Magna „Mihai Eminescu”, un concert extraordinar de muzica si poezie.

Acesta este intitulat generic si sugestiv „Din parinti pentru parinti” si va fi sustinut de Mircea Rusu Band si actorul Dorel Visan.

Manifestarea artistica are drept scop promovarea culturii, a traditiilor si de a transmite un mesaj special parintilor studentilor UAIC. Intrarea este libera, in limita locurilor disponibile.

Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași 

 

 Profesorii de la TUIASI vor coordona teze de doctorat în Europa despre securitatea cibernetică

 Universitatea Tehnică „Gheorghe Asachi” din Iași (TUIASI) realizează formalitățile pentru aderarea la Școala Doctorală Europeană în domeniul Politicii Comune de Securitate și Apărare, unde va trimite profesori cu rol de mentor și supervizor în echipe care vor coordona teme comune de cercetare pe securitatea europeană și apărare.

Școala Doctorală, coordonată de către Colegiul European de Securitate și Apărare, oferă un program suplimentar de training specializat, pe lângă activitatea desfășurată de doctoranzi la universitățile din țara din care provin, și poate oferi sprijin pentru teze inter și pluridisciplinare pe șapte domenii. TUIASI va sprijini desfășurarea activității acestei instituții cu formatori pe cinci dintre aceste domenii, care vizează mai multe subcategorii, de la noile tehnologii, securitate, tehnologia informației, calculatoare, infrastructură, personal și logistică de apărare, industria și capacitățile de apărare, guvernare, management, economie și finanțe din domeniul apărării etc.

„Este firesc ca o universitate tehnică, în principal una care are expertiza și infrastructura adecvată acestei expertize, să fie inclusă într-un organism european de o asemenea anvergură și importanță strategică pentru securitatea societății, sub toate aspectele ei. Chiar la o analiză rapidă a celor șapte domenii, se poate observa că Politehnice ieșeană poate contribui la cinci dintre acestea prin mentorii sau coordonatorii studiilor doctorale din domeniile asociate”, a declarat prof. univ. dr. ing. Dan Cașcaval, rector al Universității Tehnice „Gheorghe Asachi” din Iași.

Funcționarea Școlii Doctorale Europene în domeniul Politicii Comune de Securitate și Apărare permite oferirea de sprijin și pentru studenții doctoranzi care și-au început deja proiectul de cercetare, dacă lucrează în domeniile de interes pentru școala doctorală. Aceștia vor fi pregătiți de echipe formate atât din coordonatori de teze doctorale acreditați la nivel național, însă conducerea doctoratelor se va desfășura strict în baza legislației naționale din statul membru UE de unde provine candidatul, cât din mentori, care pot fi cadre didactice specializate pe anumite domenii care nu au obținut calitatea de coordonator de doctorate conform legislației naționale.

„Apartenența noastră la acest organism confirmă abordarea noastră actuală, din punct de vedere academic, a problemelor acute care privesc securitatea cibernetică, securitatea socială sub toate aspectele, prevenirea conflictelor și asigurarea unui management, pe diferite niveluri, care să evite crizele sociale. Această abordare nouă se regăsește în programele de masterat, programele postuniversitare și în programele doctorale, realizate în majoritatea lor în parteneriat cu organisme specializate în aceste direcții. În acest mod, vom extinde aria cooperării și la nivel european și sunt convins că aportul Politehnicii ieșene va fi unul consistent și va fi apreciat”, a mai specificat rectorul TUIASI.

Următoarea întâlnire plenară, cea de-a opta, a Școlii Doctorale Europene în domeniul Politicii Comune de Securitate și Apărare va fi organizată la Bruxelles în perioada 4-5 martie 2019.

Publicație : Ziarul de Iași și Evenimentul și Bună Ziua Iași

 1.350 de elevi simulează concursul de admitere din vară de la UMF

 Universitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie „Grigore T. Popa“ din Iaşi (UMF) organizează duminică, 3 martie 2019, prima ediţie din acest an a simulării concursului de admitere, organizată împreună cu toate cele cinci ligi afiliate instituţiei de învăţământ superior medical. Simularea este organizată de două ori pe an şi are ca scop asumat de organizatori de a veni în ajutorul viitorilor studenţi, pregătindu-i pentru susţinerea concursului din luna iulie. 

Concursul simulat se poate da pentru următoarele specializări: Medicină, Medicină Dentară, Farmacie, Bioinginerie Medicală, Asistenţă Medicală Generală, Nutriţie şi Dietetică, Balneo-fiziokinetoterapie şi recuperare şi Tehnică Dentară. Aproape 1.350 de elevi s-au înscris la ediţia de duminică pentru a se familiariza cu atmosfera acestui examen important şi pentru a-şi evalua cunoştinţele dobândite până în prezent. Dintre aceştia, 1.130 au optat pentru Facultatea de Medicină, 130 elevi pentru Facultatea de Medicină Dentară, 50 participanţi pentru Facultatea de Farmacie şi 40 pentru Facultatea de Bioinginerie Medicală. „Pe parcursul a trei ore, participanţii înscrişi vor susţine un test alcătuit din întrebări tip grilă de Biologie, Fizică, Chimie sau Matematică. În acest an, întrebările la care vor răspunde elevii au fost realizate în mod exclusiv de cadrele didactice ale UMF. Peste 150 de voluntari ai societăţilor studenţeşti au fost mobilizaţi pentru a lua parte la organizarea simulării conform metodologiei actuale”, au precizat organizatorii.

Publicație : Ziarul de Iași și Bună Ziua Iași

14 milioane de lei pentru renovarea celui mai vechi muzeu de ştiinţe din ţară

De ani de zile, clădirea care adăposteşte peste 300.000 de exponate riscă să se prăbuşească. Muzeul de Istorie Naturală a fost înfiinţat în februarie 1834. După ce a ajuns în patrimoniul Primăriei, a apărut posibilitatea unei finanţări prin programul POR pe axa dedicată reabilitării patrimoniului cultural u ce presupune reabilitarea?

Unul dintre cele mai vechi muzee din ţară va fi redeschis publicului larg după o investiţie cu fonduri europene. Muzeul de Istorie Naturală din Iaşi este închis de peste şase ani, timp în care inclusiv statutul juridic al clădirii în care funcţionează a fost o minge de ping-pong între autorităţi. Situaţia s-a clarificat în 2015: monumentul istoric din zona centrală a Iaşului, de pe bulevardul Independenţei, a trecut, ca efect a unei hotărâri judecătoreşti, în patrimoniul public al Primăriei Iaşi. Ulterior, municipalitatea ieşeană a invocat lipsa resurselor financiare pentru reabilitarea clădirii, cu toate că, încă de la mjlocul anilor ’90, rezultatele unei expertize tehnice au arătat că imobilul riscă să se prăbuşească. Ani la rândul, clădirea, care adăposteşte peste 300.000 de exponate, s-a degradat.

În cele din urmă, Primăria a întocmit un proiect de finanţare europeană, dar acesta a fost, iniţial, respins. Ulterior, o relocare de fonduri în cadrul Programului Operaţional Regional (POR) 2014 – 2020, pe axa dedicată reabilitării patrimoniului cultural, a dus la situaţia în care, săptămâna trecută, Primăria Iaşi a semnat contractul de finanţare europeană în valoare de circa 14 milioane lei. Refacerea acestui edificiu este unul dintre cele opt proiecte întocmite de Primărie (patru) şi Consiliul Judeţean (patru) care au accesat finanţare europeană pe axa patrimoniului cultural. În total, peste 100 milioane lei, iar toate cele opt imobile care vor fi restaurate în următorii 2-3 ani sunt monumente istorice.

„Ce facem cu elefantul?”

Muzeul de Istorie Naturală din Iaşi a fost înfiinţat în 1834, fiind cel mai vechi muzeu de acest fel din ţară. Pe 3 ianuarie 1859 într-o sală a muzeului s-a făcut istorie: Alexandru Ioan Cuza a fost desemnat candidat la domnia Moldovei – urnele există şi astăzi, fiind puse în valoare la un alt muzeu din Iaşi (Muzeul Unirii). Strâns legat de istoria Muzeului de pe bd. Independenţei este şi elefantul Gaba, cumpărat de domnitorul Mihail Sturdza de la un circ italian şi care este expus la muzeu de mai bine de 150 de ani. La semnarea contractului de finanţare europeană pentru restaurarea clădirii Muzeului de Istorie Naturală, primarul Mihai Chirica a declarat că una dintre provocările proiectului de restaurare vizează chiar scheletul elefantului. „Ce facem cu elefantul? Elefantul nu poate fi scos nici pe uşă, nici pe geam. Ne batem capul de câteva zile dacă nu ar fi cea mai bună soluţie să conservăm elefantul, fără să-l mutăm de pe poziţie din sala în care se află în momentul de faţă”, a declarat primarul Mihai Chirica.

l a subliniat că există probleme în acest sens şi cu alte exponate din cadrul Muzeului, dar, a asigurat edilul, vor fi identificate soluţii de relocare/conservare alături de specialişti. Potrivit edilului, conservarea acestor exponate pe perioada lucrărilor va reveni constructorului, în cazul în care nu vor fi identificate alte soluţii ce implică o relocare temporară a acestora. În context, de precizat că Primăria a lansat deja licitaţia pentru execuţia lucrărilor, iar ofertele urmează să fie deschise pe 14 martie. Proiectul de restaurare prevede consolidarea clădirii în concordanţă cu principiile de intervenţie asupra monumentelor istorice, refacerea finisajelor interioare şi exterioare (specific sfârşitului secolului al XIX-lea), înlocuirea şarpantei şi a tâmplăriei, refacerea instalaţiilor, instalarea unui lift şi montarea unui sistem de supraveghere video. După restaurare, monumentul istoric îşi va menţine destinaţia de muzeu cu o bibliotecă şi o sală de conferinţă (Societatea de Medici şi Naturalişti), trei săli expoziţii mamifere, două săli colecţii ştiinţifice, o sală expoziţie păsări, o sală expoziţie nevertebrate inferioare, o sală expoziţie nevertebrate şi insecte, o sală expoziţie mineralogie – paleontologie şi sala cu caracter istoric („Alexandru Ioan Cuza”). În perioada lucrărilor, parte din patrimoniul instituţiei va fi găzduit de Muzeul Municipal, instituţie de cultură recent înfiinţată de Primăria Iaşi într-o clădire monument istoric restaurată tot cu fonduri europene, dar în exerciţiul bugetar european anterior (2007 – 2013).

Axa dedicată patrimoniului cultural din cadrul POR constituie o importantă sursă de finanţare pentru autorităţile locale care vor să reabiliteze monumente istorice. Iniţial, Primăria a câştigat doar două proiecte pe această linie de finanţare: reabilitarea ansamblului Mănăstirii Frumoasa şi „Baia Turcească”. Alte două, Muzeul de Istorie Naturală şi Palatul Braunstein, au primit finanţare abia după ce a fost realizată o suplimentare de fonduri în cadrul POR. În acelaşi timp, patru proiecte asemănătoare au fost câştigate de către Consiliul Judeţean, iar acestea constau tot în reabilitarea de monumente istorice: Muzeul „Vasile Pogor”, Casa Dosoftei, Muzeul „Nicolae Gane” şi sediul fostei Chesturi, clădire în care, anterior, în prima parte a secolului trecut, a funcţionat revista de cultură „Viaţa Românească”. În total, cele opt proiecte enumerate au o valoare cumulată de peste 100 milioane lei. Toate proiectele sunt în faza de execuţie a lucrărilor.

Publicație : Ziarul de Iași

Cei zece finalişti ai celei de-a XVI-a ediţii a Premiului Naţional de Proză „Ziarul de Iaşi“

 Juriul Premiului Naţional de Proză „Ziarul de Iaşi“ a selectat deja cei zece finalişti ai celei de-a XVI-a ediţii a concursului, dintre cele zece volume urmând să se aleagă cea mai bună carte de proză românească care a apărut în anul 2018. Anul acesta, sponsorul principal al ediţiei este Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară „Ion Ionescu de la Brad” din Iaşi.

Cei zece finalişti selectaţi anul acesta de către juriul format din scriitorii şi criticii Alexandru Călinescu, în calitate de preşedinte, Bogdan Creţu, Codrin Liviu Cuţitaru, Doris Mironescu şi Antonio Patraş sunt:

* Cristina Andrei, „Matriarhat” (Editura Nemira)

* Tatiana Ţîbuleac, „Grădina de sticlă” (Editura Cartier)

* Radu Aldulescu, „Rezidenţi în Casa Visurilor” (Editura Hyperliteratura)

* Liliana Corobca, „Capătul drumului” (Editura Polirom)

* Bogdan Suceavă, „Avalon. Secretele emigranţilor fericiţi” (Editura Polirom)

* Mihai Buzea, „Jimmy” (Editura Polirom)

* Carmen Firan, „Umbra pierdută” (Editura Polirom)

* Vlad Zografi, „Şapte octombrie” (Editura Humanitas)

* Andreea Răsuceanu, „O formă de viaţă necunoscută” (Editura Humanitas)

* Radu Vancu, „Transparenţă” (Editura Humanitas)

Criticul literar Alexandru Călinescu, preşedintele juriului Premiului Naţional de Proză „Ziarul de Iaşi”, a menţionat că „Anul 2018 a fost un an bun pentru proză: au apărut romane de valoare, au apărut şi volume bune de proză scurtă. Juriul a selectat într-o primă etapă, ca de obicei, zece cărţi. Avem şi autori cunoscuţi – Radu Vancu, Bogdan Suceavă, Radu Aldulescu, Vlad Zografi – şi autori în plină afirmare sau chiar debutanţi în roman – Andreea Răsuceanu, Tatiana Ţibuleac, Cristina Andrei. N-am avut cea mai mică intenţie să respectăm cine ştie ce «paritate de gen», dar, fără să vrem, aşa ne-a ieşit: în competiţie au rămas cinci prozatoare şi cinci prozatori. Când, în etapa următoare a jurizării, ne vom opri – conform regulamentului – la cinci nume, vom fi obligaţi să stricăm frumoasa simetrie… Important e însă altceva: selecţia să reţină cele mai bune cinci cărţi, iar dintre ele se va alege, în final, cea mai valoroasă. Am convingerea că, şi de data aceasta, juriul va face opţiunea potrivită”, a afirmat Alexandru Călinescu.

Anul trecut, marele câştigător al Premiului Naţional de Proză „Ziarul de Iaşi“ a fost scriitorul Răzvan Petrescu, cu volumul „Mandarina“, apărut la Editura „Curtea Veche“, fiind acordate şi două premii pentru debut, lui Sorin Grigoruţă, cercetător ştiinţific III la Institutul de Istorie „A.D. Xenopol“ din Iaşi, şi Cristinei Preutu, lector universitar doctor la Facultatea de Istorie a Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ din Iaşi.

Premiul Naţional de Proză „Ziarul de Iaşi“ a fost înfiinţat în 2004, din dorinţa redacţiei de a-i premia pe cei mai buni scriitori români şi de a oferi repere valorice cititorilor pasionaţi de literatură. Partenerul principal al ediţiei din acest an este Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară „Ion Ionescu de la Brad” din Iaşi.

Publicație : Ziarul de Iași

Pro-life student society approved at Birmingham University amid row over freedom of speech

Anti-abortion group is now hoping to set up a society to ensure both sides are represented

An anti-abortion society has been approved at the University of Birmingham amid a row over free speech.

The Students’ Guild gave the green light to the „Birmingham Students For Life” group this month despite strong opposition.

The group describes itself on its Facebook page as a „society of students who believe that human life should be protected from the moment of conception until natural death and we act to try and promote a culture of life on campus.”

t added: „To this end, we aim to inform women with unexpected or difficult pregnancies of the options that are open to them other than abortion and to encourage civil debate and discussion between those who are pro-life and pro-choice.”

The application had been deferred multiple times prior to approval and student officers had tried to stop the formation of the group, student newspaper The Tab reported.

A group of students is now hoping to set up a pro-choice society to ensure a pro-life perspective “does not control the dialogue”.

The move comes after a pro-life group was banned from affiliating to the students’ union at the University of Glasgow. It was described as an “assault on freedom of speech” by Glasgow Students for Life.

A similar ban on anti-abortion groups at the University of Strathclyde was lifted by the students’ association in October last year amid concerns around free speech.

Some have defended the formation of the pro-choice society at the University of Birmingham as they argue a ban would undermine free speech as it is a “legitimate belief”.

But the student union’s women’s officers, Alif Trevathan and Holly Battrick, have condemned the move.

“Freedom of speech is undeniably an important value in our society, but this should not come at the cost of other people’s safety,” the pair told The Tab. “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to incite hatred or violence or bigotry. The so-called ‘pro-life’ stance is one we believe to incite misogyny and hatred by way of policing people’s bodies and right to bodily autonomy. It should never be welcome in our student’s union.”

Speaking to The Independent, they added: „We have already received multiple emails from frightened students who feel their safety is being violated due to the very existence of this group.

„Students rightly feel that the Guild allowing the group to exist means endorsement of either a pro-life position, or merely a demonstration of total antipathy.”

The University of Birmingham’s Students’ Guild told The Independent: “The pro-life group at the Guild was officially approved after a considered discussion between the students proposing to establish the group and the Guild’s Student Groups Executive. The group were approved on the condition that they work with members of staff in the Guild to develop their constitution in order to help them run their events safely and to mitigate potential risks to other students running activities on campus.

“The Guild recognises the right of all students to express freedom of speech within the law and will continue to be the home of discussion and debate for different views and opinions.”

Accepting it was not a „popular public opinion to have pro life views” Birmingham Students For Life told The Tab they were „pleased that the guild has recognised this and given us the freedom to be a society and have a platform where we are able to meet and discuss matters that we believe to be important.”

They added: „We firmly believe in being a peaceful presence on campus, where people do not feel pressured in any way and are able to approach us on their own terms”.

Publicație : The Independent

Tuition fees not university deterrent, Damian Hinds says

There is no evidence higher tuition fees have deterred young people in England from applying to university, says Education Secretary Damian Hinds.

He said applications, including from disadvantaged youngsters, had risen, despite fees of £9,250 per year.

A review, commissioned by the prime minister, is expected to call for a significant cut in fees.

But Mr Hinds said the student finance system was „very progressive” and should not put off young people.

The education secretary has written to the higher education regulator, the Office for Students, calling for greater efforts to ensure university access for people from all backgrounds and parts of the country.

Fee cut recommendations?

At the moment, Mr Hinds said, young people from London were five times more likely to get into selective universities than their counterparts in the North East.

He highlighted the need for white, working class youngsters to have fair access to universities, along with other disadvantaged groups.

But he rejected the idea that tuition fees could be a barrier.

„The evidence suggests they aren’t,” said Mr Hinds.

He said there had been predictions that there would be a drop in applications and take-up of university places after fees had been trebled in 2012.

But, he said, applications had continued to rise and the system of fees, loans and repayments should not be seen as a reason not to go to university.

The education secretary’s defence of fees comes ahead of the findings of a review chaired by Philip Augar, commissioned by the government, which is expected to recommend a reduction in tuition fees.

It follows suggestions that students, currently graduating with debts averaging £50,000, should have to borrow less to go to university.

It was also a response to Labour’s promise at the last general election to entirely scrap tuition fees.

‘Faster progress’

The OFS has been told by the education secretary to ensure universities make „greater and faster progress” in helping more young people from „under-represented groups” to get into higher education.

But Mr Hinds said that expanding the numbers of disadvantaged students would not mean reducing the numbers of applicants from wealthier families.

„This is not about saying fewer children from any one particular background – it’s about saying whatever their background, you should look at the potential of these young people,” he said.

But the regulator has said that if all young people went to university at the same rate as the wealthiest, Russell Group universities would need to have twice as many places.

It is establishing a What Works Centre to find successful approaches to widening access and wants universities to eradicate „equality gaps” in recruitment within the next 20 years.

Mr Hinds said £860m was currently being spent on widening participation, including funding from tuition fees and the taxpayer.

But there needed to be more clarity about what was effective and provided value for money.

OFS fair access director Chris Millward said: „A huge amount of time, money and resources are already invested in access and participation.

„But there is a lack of understanding about what works and staff working at the coal face have been calling for a central place for evidence on effective approaches to be systematically gathered and shared.

„The evidence and impact exchange will meet this need, improving outcomes for students and providing better value for money on the investments that are made.”

 Publicație : BBC News

Australia and Asia: the academic foreign exchange

John Ross examines the state of cross-study and collaboration between Australia and its neighbours in the East

While Australian higher education has been rocked by government moves to take money away from universities, perhaps the most contentious issue of the past year has involved a philanthropic group’s desire to put tens of millions of dollars back in.

Among the objections to the Ramsay Centre’s attempts to bankroll degrees in Western civilisation has been a conviction that it would “privilege the West at the expense of the rest”. An open letter endorsed by 200 academics at the University of Sydney after their institution’s negotiations with the centre became public knowledge proclaimed that “the Ramsay programme represents, quite simply, European supremacism writ large. It signals that the study of the European cultural tradition warrants better educational circumstances than that of others.”

The suggestion offended Australian academia’s self-image as an egalitarian class of geographical agnostics, playing no favourites in forming working alliances. “Collaborating with chauvinistic Western essentialism would be a violation of our crucial role in promoting a society of diversity, inclusiveness and mutual respect,” the open letter insisted.

Australians pride themselves on being ardent travellers who can work with anyone. But do their academics travel with equal fervour to every corner of the globe, collaborating with all comers? And, perhaps more pertinently, are they paying enough attention to their Asian neighbours as the epicentre of global influence shifts to the East in the so-called Asian Century? Or are they instinctively drawn to the comfort zone of the West, where many trace their culture and bloodlines?

Are they as readily inclined to Yogyakarta as to Yale? Would they lecture in Laos instead of London? Could they forgo a sabbatical in Siena, a conference in Copenhagen, for Seoul or Cangzhou? In teaching, in research, in engagement and in self-concept, do Australian universities have a Western skew?

They do not in teaching, data suggest. The terms “Asia” or “Asian” appear in 10 Australian undergraduate course titles, according to the government’s Course Seeker website, compared with just one mention of “Europe” and none of “America”. Asia features in the outlines of 65 courses, compared with 20 references to Europe and 24 to America, leaving aside a suite of 30 double-degrees at a single Sydney university where the course descriptions cite all three regions.

Australian universities also lean decidedly East in terms of education exports, with Asians constituting the vast majority of overseas students obtaining Australian degrees. The top 10 source countries of the 400,000-odd foreign students undertaking Australian higher education courses last year were all in eastern, southern and south-eastern Asia, collectively constituting about 83 per cent of enrolments – and triggering concerns that universities are far too dependent on a single source market, China, for a crucial revenue stream.

Outward-bound Australian students also favour neighbouring countries for their study-abroad experiences. Of the top 14 international destinations targeted by almost 50,000 Australian university students in 2017, eight were in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a report by the Australian Universities International Directors Forum. These countries attracted as many students as the principal North American and European countries combined.

Phil Honeywood, chief executive of the International Education Association of Australia, credits the federal government’s signature New Colombo Plan for not only fostering outbound student mobility but also for refocusing it on the Indo-Pacific. “Australian undergraduates used to fly over Asia to get to Europe and North America,” Honeywood says. “They now vote with their feet and go to Asia.”

The New Colombo Plan supports study experiences in 40 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, from Pakistan in the west to Mongolia in the north and French Polynesia in the east. Named after the post-war Colombo Plan, which funded 40,000 Asians, over 30 years, to study at Australian universities, the plan was launched in 2014 to boost the number of Australian undergraduates studying and gaining work experience in Asia, after a report revealed that only 7,000 did so in 2012.

Kent Anderson, former deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia, says that the plan has been instrumental in turning study abroad from a “cottage industry” run by handfuls of staff to core business at every Australian university. “It’s been mainstreamed and institutionalised,” he says. “I don’t think that’s happened anywhere else [except] in elite US universities.”

Australian universities also favour the Asia- Pacific in their transnational efforts, with the region home to two-thirds of Australia’s overseas branch campuses, branded colleges and joint venture academies. The others are mostly in the Middle East and Africa.

And while Australian universities do not routinely divulge data on where their staff travel overseas – with some deeming this information commercially sensitive – the University of Sydney is an exception, listing its senior executives’ promotional trips in its annual reports. This decade, 52 per cent of those visits have been to Asia-Pacific countries, with Europe accounting for 23 per cent and North America 12 per cent.

Reporting rules also require Victorian universities to provide information about their overseas visits on request, although just one – La Trobe University – was able to do so within Times Higher Education’s publication time frames.

Of about 1,000 overseas trips that La Trobe staff took to 67 countries in 2017, 41 per cent were made to nations in the Asia-Pacific. The region attracted 50 per cent of journeys for research and field study, 60 per cent for marketing and business meetings, 78 per cent for partner visits and 96 per cent for teaching – although Europe and North America were the preferred destinations for conferences and seminars, with the Asia-Pacific attracting just 35 per cent of trips for this purpose.

So judged on what, who and where they teach, Australian universities seem inclined to the East. And the readily available data also suggest the East is where they tend to do business.

In research, however, the story is a little different. Australians are renowned for working with overseas researchers, and the majority of the country’s journal papers now feature international co-authors. On this measure, Australia ranks roughly on a par with the UK and Canada, marginally behind the Netherlands and France but ahead of Germany and miles in front of the US, Japan, South Korea and China.

Between 2013 and 2017, Australia produced more than 230,000 internationally co-authored publications listed on publisher Elsevier’s Scopus database. Somewhat predictably, the US topped the list of collaboration partners, contributing to more than 66,000 titles, followed by the UK with about 48,000. But third-placed China, whose researchers teamed up with Australians on some 42,000 publications, was well in front of Germany, Canada and France. Asia-Pacific neighbours Japan and New Zealand also ranked among Australia’s top 10 partners in collaborative publications, contributing to more than 10,000 works each.

Overall, Asia-Pacific authors had a hand in 40 per cent of Australia’s collaborative publications over the five-year period, behind Europe’s 48 per cent but ahead of North America’s 34 per cent. Many publications, of course, involve authors from multiple regions.

“We work with the best in the world, wherever they are,” says Michelle Simmons, an internationally renowned quantum physicist and 2018 Australian of the Year. “Australians are known internationally to be strong collaborators across the board,” while in other countries “you can go to some groups where they’re quite insular and don’t really leave their own country”.

Simmons says that in her highly competitive field of quantum computing, where every country wants a piece of the action, precision equipment and leading expertise can be found all around the world. She cites a partnership with the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. “They do noise measurements: they’re expert at it,” says Simmons, whose centre also has research partners in Singapore, South Korea and China. “We don’t do those measurements here [in Sydney]. Research collaboration has to be from the bottom up. It has to be real – something where you’ve got an expertise, they’ve got an expertise, and you learn from each other.”

Ten years ago, Simmons says, India had little of the appropriate equipment. However, “the group we teamed up with had some, and they’ve now grown. I think you’re going to see that all across the world – those facilities are going to grow.”

Australian researchers seem to have recognised this, increasing their collaborative output with researchers from more than 180 countries between 2013 and 2017. Co-authored publications involving 65 of these countries now average more than 100 a year, including 10 where they more than doubled over that period.

Three of these 10 nations are in the Asia-Pacific: Bangladesh (where co-authored publications more than tripled), Vietnam (up 157 per cent) and Pakistan (up 104 per cent) (see graph, page 39). Collaborations with South Korea, Indonesia, India, Hong Kong and China have also increased by between 54 and 84 per cent.

Australian research collaborations with China are causing some disquiet, particularly in fields related to defence and information technology. Some observers fear that the collaborations could allow Chinese companies to steal intellectual property, or hand the Chinese government new tools to oppress its people. But the ties are evidently deep; China is easily Australia’s primary collaboration partner in disciplines related to these areas, such as chemistry, engineering, materials science and mathematics. Indeed, the Asia-Pacific region in general is Australia’s most prolific collaboration partner in engineering and technology: the disciplines on which researchers in countries such as China, South Korea and Singapore are often encouraged to concentrate, and for which they are most renowned.

Meanwhile, the Asia-Pacific is second to Europe in the broad fields of agricultural and natural and social sciences, and third behind Europe and North America in medical sciences and the humanities.

While scores of Australian academics have rejected Ramsay Centre funding on the grounds that it would unreasonably prioritise the West in humanities teaching, Scopus data show that the West is already prioritised when it comes to humanities research.

Of almost 6,000 internationally co-authored publications in the humanities between 2013 and 2017, 51 per cent involved collaborators from Europe, while 33 per cent were co-written by North American authors and just 26 per cent with Asia-Pacific researchers.

The continent neighbouring Australia spawned the great civilisations of China and the Indus Valley, made massive advances in the arts and conjured two of the world’s five major religions. Yet in religious studies, literature, visual and performing arts, literature, philosophy and history, Australian researchers primarily collaborate with North America and Europe.

David Brophy, a senior lecturer in modern Chinese history at the University of Sydney – and an avowed opponent of the Ramsay degree – says the diversity of offerings in his department has “dried up” in recent decades.

“Twenty to 30 years ago, we had historians working on India, South-east Asia and so on,” he says. “By the time I arrived five years ago, all that was gone. Mostly, what we teach is the history of the West, in which white people are the main actors. That can be a deterrent to students of colour taking an interest in the field. And if you don’t have students of colour coming through and becoming historians, the profession risks remaining bound within a homogeneous cultural outlook.”

Brophy says that while there are “points of contact” with universities in Indonesia and South-east Asia, there are few incentives for Australian academics to engage deeply with those regions. “There’s a lot of interest in China now, but it hasn’t really translated into deeper intellectual exchange,” he says. “There’s a deep-seated sense that the European heritage has greater cultural value for us, and our engagement with Asia is much more transactional. The idea that you would study these places because they have as much intrinsic value as the things we culturally identify with from Europe – that message never really got through.”

University of Sydney sociologist Salvatore Babones says that compared with his native US, Australia’s collaboration with the Asia-Pacific is lacklustre. Babones, who supports the Ramsay proposal, says Australian academics and university administrators pay “a lot of lip service” to Asian engagement “without really taking it seriously. People are very quick to be politically correct, because being politically correct is cheap. When it comes to spending money and wanting to put in the effort – the anthropologists do it, the language studies people certainly do it, but we don’t do it systematically.”

Babones has never won a grant from Sydney’s China Studies Centre despite publishing regularly on the Chinese economy. He says the centre has practically no engagement with academics who are not directly funded by it – unlike similar centres in the US, which collaborate widely.

Sydney academics are incentivised to work with scholars from highly ranked universities, Babones says, but not from lower ranked institutions. “The university will pay enormous amounts for anyone who has a Harvard affiliation to come out [to speak at Sydney]. For people from Asian universities it’s very difficult even to get a letter of support for a visa. I’ve wanted to bring Chinese scholars over and been told that without evidence of a long-standing collaboration, they won’t be sponsored. It is very difficult to bring a visitor for three months self-funded.”

Sydney’s deputy vice-chancellor for research, Duncan Ivison, says the criticism is unfair. He says the China Studies Centre was envisaged not as a hub for China specialists but as a focal point for research “in which China features as a really important domain. It includes people who work on energy, obesity, architecture, engineering – a much broader remit and community of interest than similar centres around the world.”

Ivison cites Sydney’s university centre in Suzhou, China, its first major foreign facility, as a testament to its Asia-Pacific engagement. “It’s open to the entire university community and it’s been used by historians, medical researchers, business [scholars] – a wide array of colleagues.”

Ivison agrees that Sydney’s history department has narrowed, but says that this reflects a national decline in humanities funding. “Name me one history department that has grown anywhere in Australia in the past 10 years,” he challenges. “There’s no question that we have lost capacity on South Asia and Latin America in particular. Having said that, we still teach Spanish and Latin American studies and Chinese, Indonesian and Japanese in our language school.”

As for Sydney’s ties with top-ranking global universities, Ivison is unapologetic, saying they are driven as much by individual academics as by the university administration. “It’s part of what our researchers want,” he insists. However, “most of our partners in Asia are not in the top 50. And most of our funding for partnerships is about getting our staff into the region, or helping bring [Asian staff] to us.”

Joseph Siracusa, president of the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, notes that while Australia has considerable collaborations with Asia, they are often on pragmatic rather than characteristically Asian topics.

“The Asians we’re engaged with tend to be interested in Western or globalised subjects,” says Siracusa, a professor of human security and international diplomacy at RMIT University. Partly, he says, this is because Asian universities’ interest in the humanities is inhibited by the authoritarian regimes that are common in the region. “Working with authoritarian countries is a very strange business,” he says. “They’re not interested in the true, the good and the beautiful – they’re not even interested in Socrates…They’re interested in globalisation and how they can move in it a little better.”

The authorities in countries such as China and Vietnam are not welcoming to foreign humanities researchers, he claims, while domestic humanities researchers are also restricted in what they can investigate: “When they come here, the Vietnamese and Chinese talk about things they can’t talk about back home,” Siracusa says.

Meanwhile, Australian universities’ reliance on casual academics does not encourage Asian sabbaticals: “Sessionals, frankly, are not worried about their next study leave – they’re worried about the next pay cheque.”

Babones says that pragmatic concerns also militate against collaboration with Asian humanities scholars, since “a lot of hand-holding” is generally required.

“The simple fact is that working with Asian academics in the humanities and social sciences requires educational effort on the part of the Western scholar,” he says. “It’s a lot of work.”

Babones says that Asian counterparts often need guidance in basic research techniques, such as framing research questions or using statistical software packages. Resource and language limitations, as well as cultural constraints, undermine standards, he says, with scholars in some Asian countries rarely publishing in English language journals.

“China didn’t even allow sociology until the 21st century,” he says. “It was a proscribed discipline, so of course the level of expertise is just not there.”

Language and linguistics is another field where the Asia-Pacific lags well behind Europe in terms of Australian research collaborations. University of Newcastle linguist Bill Palmer says that more engagement would be desirable given that the Asia-Pacific is home to around one-third of the world’s languages – at least half of them endangered. But while Palmer himself leads a team labouring to document these languages before they disappear, he echoes Babones’ point that few Asia-Pacific linguists have the technical capabilities to work “at the level of international scholarship. Before there can be collaborative research there needs to be capacity building. There is some, but it’s very limited.”

Targeted scholarships to bolster Asia-Pacific locals’ linguistic research skills would have soft power spin-offs to counter the growing influence of China, Palmer adds. “There is scarcely a better way of engaging with people at the grass roots than linguistic research, where people are embedded in the community. Providing capacity building funding for speakers of those indigenous languages would have a very positive effect, but it requires vision – and of course it requires money.”

One hotspot of endangered indigenous languages is Indonesia, the crowded archipelago to Australia’s north. The Australia-Indonesia Centre, an alliance of 11 universities from both countries, has brought together some 400 researchers in many fields since its establishment in 2014. According to its Jakarta-based director, Kevin Evans, 70 per cent of these scholars had never previously collaborated. “We’ve introduced a whole new cohort of Australians to Indonesian researchers, and vice versa. That has probably been our most valuable achievement, but there’s huge scope for more,” he says.

While giants such as the US and perhaps China have the critical mass to collaborate internally, most other countries, Evans says, need to generate scale by collaborating cross-nationally. If Australian institutions endure the “pain and frustration” of working out how to engage with Indonesian institutions systematically – rather than taking the easy path of just pairing up individual researchers – they will live up to Australia’s “mantra” of being a gateway to the East, and increase their attractiveness to potential collaborators from elsewhere.

“Going through the nitty-gritty of institutional arrangements is vastly more complicated than free researchers talking to free researchers. But if we can get a deeper understanding of how that works, it becomes an interesting proposition for Europeans and others to partner with Australia,” he says.

“And if we develop capacity to do it with Indonesia, doing it with other countries in the region will become easier, too.”

Publicație : The Times

Knowledge exchange: how should universities engage with business?

The UK’s new knowledge exchange framework, whose proposed metrics were unveiled last month, has raised more questions over relationships between universities and business. David Secher and Surya Raghu cast their eye over 40 years of policy evolution on either side of the Atlantic

Technology transfer sounds like a simple enough concept, with a very obvious rationale. University researchers generate all kinds of new knowledge that could have great commercial potential if only entrepreneurs knew about it. Understandably, the governments that largely fund the research are extremely keen that this potential be realised as effectively as possible. But what exactly that should entail and how it can best be done are questions that universities and policymakers have been puzzling over for 40 years or more.

George Bernard Shaw’s aphorism about the UK and the US being divided by a common language is rarely better illustrated than in this sphere, for instance. Technology transfer became widely established in US universities with the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. This gave universities the right to own the patents arising from the results of government-funded research and to license them for commercial development. Royalties could then be charged by the universities, providing an economic incentive. In return, universities had to demonstrate their compliance with the regulations on exploiting intellectual property by reporting annually on their patenting and licensing activities.

This emphasis on patenting and licensing has determined the shape and scope of US universities’ technology licensing offices (sometimes known as technology transfer offices), which focus on the protection, promotion, marketing and licensing of intellectual property. But this focus on technology flowing from university to industry via licensing can make it difficult to keep track of the full scope of university-industry interaction, especially in areas such as consulting, incubators and executive education.

In the UK, technology transfer had a different genesis. Instead of introducing legislation, the government used financial incentives to encourage universities to develop capability. In England, a funding stream known as Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community (HEROBaC) was introduced in 1999; this later evolved into the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), currently worth £210m a year (up to £4.4m a year for a single university). These grants have not been prescriptive regarding how universities should interact with business, with funding distributed on the strength of universities’ self-generated plans for doing so, as well as their past performance in attracting external income.

This lack of prescription has allowed different UK universities to develop very different models, depending on their research strengths, local economic conditions and institutional strategies. The large research-intensives set up or enlarged their technology transfer offices, to function along similar lines to their peers in the US. Smaller, less research-intensive universities, meanwhile, focused more on local businesses, offering them consultancy, networking opportunities, project management, executive education and facilities and equipment for rent. That said, even in a research-intensive university such as the University of Cambridge, consultancy is one of the fastest areas of growth.

The potential commercial value of the knowledge that exists in university faculties of arts, humanities and social science has also been more consciously recognised in the UK – as has the idea that commercialisation is not just a one-way process of universities’ passing on the fruits of their research to the commercial sector. This has led to discomfort with the perceived narrowness of the term “technology transfer”, with “knowledge transfer”, “research commercialisation” or “knowledge exchange” all suggested as alternatives. A well-respected UK university once even threatened to withdraw from an otherwise excellent programme that contained the “T-word” because “what we do is not technology”.

But the US concept of technology transfer is also evolving. In a 2016 article on LinkedIn, Arundeep Pradhan, president of innovation and entrepreneurship training and management firm Apio Innovation Transfer, describes an evolution towards “technology transfer 4.0”, which includes many of the activities common in UK universities, including “robust start-up programs and start-up funding, industry collaboration, and business development”. However, consultancy is still commonly viewed as a personal activity in the US, and conflict of interest policies often forbid academics from carrying it out in the name of the university.

In both the US and the UK, the development of professional associations – the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) in the US and what is now PraxisAuril in the UK – has played an important role in catalysing and monitoring developments. These organisations have collaborated, with each other and with other national associations, to develop global standards of professionalism, recognised by the international “Registered Technology Transfer Professional” (RTTP) designation.

And the results of all of this are impressive. The UK continues to beat itself up over its supposed inability to capitalise commercially on the global excellence of its research, but it should not. From a very low base 30 years ago, university-business collaborations in the UK now total £4.2 billion a year, and more than 30 per cent of academics have had experience of working with business.

Other countries have also woken up to the opportunities that the “knowledge economy” offers, particularly in light of the decline or eastward migration of many of their traditional industries.

Yet working through the differences in possible approach is even more critical for emerging economies. It is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all international model. Licensing-only approaches, encouraged by Bayh-Dole-style legislation, may be unsuitable or unaffordable in many countries. A more flexible, holistic approach fits better with economies whose national research budgets are small and whose universities can’t afford to invest in IP, or where IP policy is underdeveloped or poorly understood in the commercial sector.

Additional considerations include the quality of the research and innovation in the country in question, any barriers to entering local markets and the availability of investment capital and entrepreneurial, technical and management skills.

Educational and university policies have to be revised to be in sync with national strategy. Universities need to understand any new legislation and its motivation, and develop compatible strategies for business engagement that are appropriate for their environments. They need to take into account their local and regional economies, plus any legal constraints that relate to technology transfer. For example, are university students allowed to set up companies? What about postdoctoral researchers or faculty? And who is allowed to consult, or do industry-sponsored research within the university? What are the incentives for engaging with industry and for exploiting university inventions? How easy is it for companies to identify and access the knowledge available in universities? How does government policy encourage or inhibit scientists from thinking entrepreneurially? How are risk and failure viewed culturally?

There is an increasing tendency for many universities and research organisations in developing countries to assess the performance of their technology transfer offices in terms of the number of patents filed and the licensing income generated from them. But while these may indicate, to some extent, a measure of success, they will not capture the entire impact of university research and education – and may work against it. The number of patents filed is no indication of the amount of revenue generated, or of knowledge transferred.

Any expectations of quick financial rewards for the institution from such endeavours alone are doomed. Technology transfer should, instead, be treated as a long-term investment, whose impact is measured by a broader range of metrics, such as the number of entrepreneurs and start-ups created, the number of direct and indirect jobs created by them, and the number of graduates from the institution hired by the licensees. At a national level, the resulting increase in the tax base and the retention of skilled manpower within the country should also be considered.

In this context, we should welcome the recently proposed metrics for the UK’s new national assessment of what oversight body Research England has chosen to call knowledge exchange. The knowledge exchange framework, as it is known, constitutes a bold attempt to measure the full range of business and community engagement, from IP commercialisation to unpaid time devoted to museums and performances. Moreover, the focus on pre-existing datasets will be applauded for avoiding imposing mountains of extra work on universities.

Responses to Research England’s consultation on the metrics may note that gaps in the picture will remain unless further metrics are adopted, such as jobs created, students absorbed by industry, or external recognition or awards. Nor do the proposed metrics record institutional policies, or assess how such policies influence performance, even though support from senior management is a key factor in the success of technology transfer. But we expect the general response in the consultation to be positive. The proposed KEF metrics and perspectives will provide a comprehensive definition, for the UK at least, of knowledge exchange, and a recognition that it is now a core function of universities.

Nevertheless, governments should be wary of delegating the task of creating knowledge economies entirely to universities. In the UK, many universities have embraced the wider role of creating and managing innovation ecosystems via science parks, incubators, accelerators and venture funds. But there is only so much that they can do in the absence of further government policies to create a commercial sector able and incentivised to capitalise on the technology and knowledge generated in universities.

This is an important lesson for developing countries, too. Their governments would do well to adopt and adapt the lessons of those like the UK and the US that are further down the road of university reform in this area. But they must also remember that “knowledge exchange”, “technology transfer” or whatever else they choose to call it requires two actors who are willing and able to play their part. Innovation policies focused exclusively on higher education are bound to fail.

Publicație : The Times

Universities warned to plan for EU funding gap as talks stall

Negotiations on €100 billion Horizon Europe scheme delayed by East-West tensions and could be slowed further by European elections

Europe’s biggest universities have been warned to make contingency plans and build up financial reserves in case Brussels gridlock leads to new European Union research funding being cut off in 2021.

There are fears that not enough progress has been made preparing Horizon Europe, successor to the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and that European elections in May could derail the process further.

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities (Leru), told Times Higher Education that “time is running out”.

“The worry in my group is growing” and a gap in EU funding would be disastrous, he said. Leru, which includes the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Sorbonne University and LMU Munich, had told its university leaders that “you better make sure you’ve got a buffer or reserve” to ensure contingency for institutes or labs that relied on EU funding, Professor Deketelaere added.

Preparations for Horizon Europe, set to start in 2021 with a proposed budget of close to €100 billion (£86.8 billion), have become bogged down in disagreements over whether it should redistribute more money across the continent to close the gap in scientific strength between West and East, a direction championed by Dan Nica, a Romanian MEP, one of two rapporteurs appointed to steer the programme through the European Parliament.

But organisations such as Leru, representing large research universities, and countries with strong research systems such as Germany, want to continue a focus on “excellence” – funding the best research proposals, regardless of geography.

The divisions signal that wider EU splits over issues such as migration and authoritarianism between Brussels and countries including Hungary, Poland and Italy were spilling over to make compromise over research policy harder, Professor Deketelaere said.

The negotiations have now entered the trilogue process – a three-way discussion between MEPs, member state governments and the European Commission.

University representatives in Brussels fear that the process could be slowed further by European Parliament elections on 23-26 May – expected to bring in more MEPs from the far left and right, potentially making compromises harder. New European commissioners will then take office in November.

That timescale could also hit the UK’s hopes of joining Horizon Europe as an associated country after Brexit. Chris Skidmore, the universities and science minister, has emphasised that talks on association cannot begin until the EU has finalised the programme’s regulations, and warned that European elections and the choice of a new commission will further delay those talks.

On the general picture for Horizon Europe, Lidia Borrell-Damian, director for research and innovation at the European University Association, said that new MEPs could in theory “go back to square one” in negotiations. As much as possible needed to be decided before the election, in order to “protect” Horizon Europe from changes, she said.

The risk was less that researchers were left with a gap in EU funding, she added, but more that in the coming negotiations, Horizon Europe’s budget is downgraded as part of a compromise deal.

Clare Moody, a UK MEP who has been part of the parliamentary committee scrutinising Horizon Europe, warned that “either there’s an agreement this March, or next March”, because new MEPs would take some time to get to grips with the process.

She said that her “gut instinct” was that “we will get there” in terms of an “overall agreement” before the election. But a gap in funding was still “possible”, she acknowledged. “There is a lot of devotion to the programme” and a desire to avoid “chasms” in funding, but there still may not be a “smooth handover”, Ms Moody warned.

Some in Brussels are more confident that an agreement will be reached in time, pointing out that negotiations over the existing Horizon 2020 programme also went down to the wire.

Jan Palmowski, secretary general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, said that he was “concerned but not alarmed”. The European Commission “will make it work, I have no doubt”, he said.

But even if a gap in funding is avoided in 2021, Guild universities “are concerned by the lack of clarity” about the exact scope of Horizon Europe’s new “missions”, he warned.

The missions are an attempt to set out “moonshot” scientific projects that the public can relate to. So far, climate change, cancer, healthy oceans and natural waters, carbon-neutral and smart cities, and soil health are all on the agenda.

At a press conference after a meeting of EU research ministers on 19 February, Carlos Moedas, commissioner for research, science and innovation, said that there was agreement on what the “broad areas” would cover. “On the fundamental issues, we all agree,” he added, but urged all parties to push for an agreement before the election. “We need to be ready for 2021,” he said.

An outcomes document released after the meeting revealed that “several delegations stressed the need for a swift political agreement” on how Horizon Europe would be implemented.

Professor Palmowski said that more clarity was needed about each mission’s specific goals. “Ultimately, our researchers have to know with plenty of time,” he said.

Publicație : The Times

Ministers launch £10 million English fund for University Enterprise Zones

Investment will help institutions develop university-industry collaboration

support higher education institutions collaborating with local businesses.

The investment will help develop proposals for up to 10 new UEZs in England in a bid to boost local economies and jobs. The zones, which have been piloted previously, are a type of incubator that provides physical spaces and facilities for small businesses, where they can access support, specialist facilities and knowledge.

The scheme, which is funded by £5 million from the Research England Development Fund and another £5 million announced in the 2018 Budget, aims to ensure that the research and expertise developed in universities further aligns with the needs of local businesses.

The government said that the move, which is part of its Industrial Strategy, would help universities better understand what employers are looking for from graduates and allow businesses to benefit from a university’s expertise.

The new fund was launched by Treasury minister Robert Jenrick and universities and science minister Chris Skidmore during a visit to the University of Nottingham, which has successfully piloted a UEZ that is supporting start-ups and enterprises in the East Midlands.

Mr Jenrick said: “By making sure universities are equipping graduates with the expertise that surrounding businesses are looking for, and entrepreneurs can operate in business-friendly environments, we can help fire up local economies, create more jobs and boost growth.”

Mr Skidmore said that English universities are “among the best in the world, and when they join forces with our ambitious and innovative small businesses, they have the potential to meet the grand challenges of the future”.

“Today’s investment to bring business and academics together will not only lead to the creation of new products and services, it will boost job creation for local areas to feel the benefits of UK innovation, which demonstrates our modern Industrial Strategy in action,” he added.

Publicație : The Times

 

25 doctorants de Sciences Po reçoivent des menaces de mort

L’institut d’études politique de Paris a porté plainte vendredi 22 février dernier après que 25 de ses doctorants ont reçu des courriels de menaces de mort. D’autres institutions auraient reçu des messages similaires.

«La France sera purgée de son élitocratie par le fer et le sang dans les délais les meilleurs», «la colère du peuple est totale et définitive»… Voilà le genre de phrases que 25 des doctorants du centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po Paris, le Cevipof, ont reçu dans leurs boîtes mail jeudi 21 février. L’école a décidé de porter plainte à la suite de ces menaces de mort et affirme que d’autres instiutions ont été touchés par ces «spams».

Le 22 février, 25 collaborateurs de Sciences-Po ont reçu par courriel des menaces de mort : « Vous incarnez un monde qui sera bientôt passer par les armes » (Sic). Un signalement a été immédiatement transmis à la @prefpolice . @sciencespo

«Mettre le feu à votre école»

C’est Louis de Raguenel, le rédacteur en chef de l’hebdomadaire Valeurs actuelles, qui avait dans un premier temps évoqué ces messages reçus par les doctorants sur Twitter. «Le 22 février, 25 collaborateurs de Sciences-Po ont reçu par courriel des menaces de mort, avait-il écrit. ‘Vous incarnez un monde qui sera bientôt passer par les armes’ (Sic). Un signalement a été immédiatement transmis à la préfecture de police.»

Contactée par le Figaro, l’école de la rue Saint-Guillaume confirme ces messages, mais évoque des «Spams» envoyés à Sciences Po comme dans d’autres institutions ces dernières semaines. «Cela ressemble à des spams envoyés à des listes de mails trouvés sur internet» explique l’école.

Automatique ou pas, la sémantique reste particulièrement violente. D’après Le Monde, le courriel reçu se concluait par la phrase suivante: «La haine de ce que vous incarnez est incommensurable. Mettre le feu à votre école permettrait au peuple de s’affranchir intellectuellement».

 Publicație : Le Figaro

PSL, Sciences Po et HEC cartonnent au prestigieux classement international QS

Le très suivi classement QS annuel par disciplines est paru ce mercredi. Une dizaine d’établissements français sont couronnés, certains montent en flèche et d’autres maintiennent leur place dans le top 5 mondial.

C’est une très belle percée pour la France. Ce mercredi 27 février, l’édition 2019 des classements QS par disciplines, l’un des plus consultés au monde, révèle la montée en puissance de plusieurs universités ou grands établissements français. Ce palmarès annuel, considéré comme une référence pour les employeurs, regroupe plus de 1200 universités et 78 pays classés selon 48 tables et 5 grands domaines. L’édition 2018 avait été consultée plus de 175 millions de fois.

» LIRE AUSSI – Classement des meilleures Écoles de Commerce 2019

Sorbonne université et PSL entrent en force

Pour la première fois dans ce classement, la toue nouvelle Sorbonne Université (fusion début 2018 de l’université Pierre et Marie Curie et de l’université Paris-Sorbonne) se hisse au rang de la 15ème meilleure université du monde en histoire classique et ancienne. Dans la catégorie mathématiques, l’université PSL (Paris Sciences et Lettres) fait également une entrée remarquée, en obtenant la 20ème place. Ces deux montées en puissances ont été favorisées par les récents regroupements (fusion de Paris-Sorbonne et Pierre-et-Marie-Curie en janvier 2018 pour fonder Sorbonne Université, fusion de 9 institutions d’enseignement supérieur en 2010 pour PSL). Si la France compte désormais 94 départements appartenant pour chacun au top 100 mondial, c’est en partie grâce à ces deux fusions d’universités. Sorbonne Université et PSL, qui comptent pour un tiers des départements de ce top 100.

Sciences Po grimpe sur le podium pour la première fois

Parmi les ascensions spectaculaires, HEC Paris grimpe à la 17ème place pour la comptabilité et finance, alors qu’elle était 36ème l’an dernier. L’Université Paris Panthéon Sorbonne passe de 38ème à 20ème en histoire classique et ancienne, et de 23ème à 18ème en archéologie. AgroParisTech n’a pas non plus à rougir, s’élevant de la 10ème à la 4ème place. Quant à Sciences Po, 4ème l’an dernier en «politiques et études internationales», elle monte sur le podium en obtenant la troisième place mondiale. Elle n’est devancée que par Harvard au premier rang et Oxford. L’Insead maintient le cap dans la catégorie Commerce et gestion en 2ème position, talonnant toujours Harvard.

Autre indicateur positif, les chiffres attestent d’une meilleure perception des diplômés français par les employeurs. Le score moyen pour la réputation auprès de ces derniers est en augmentation de quasi 3 points d’année en année. Malgré ces résultats encourageants, le système français d’enseignement supérieur ne parvient pas à dépasser ceux des Pays-Bas, de la Suisse et de l’Allemagne. Un défi de taille à relever pour les prochaines années.

 

Publicație : Le Figaro