Building Reputation
Good universities are long lived organisations that have built their reputation over many years. The recent past has witnessed a number of new Universities which mainly focus on teaching. The key issue is how can these organisations increase their standing in the academic community. How can they transition from purely teaching ``colleges'' to Universities whose primary goal is still good undergraduate education?
In this note I will focus on two points, selective intake and feeder to top research Universities as possible steps to improve reputation.
In this context the progress of Dartmouth University is relevant. In the initial days it was a relatively poor and unknown College. But today with its large endowments it is a prestigious University, even though it is the smallest of the Ivy League Universities.
Personally, I think selective admission is what lead to the increase in Dartmouth's reputation. While resources are important, perception of the general public is also relevant.
In 2007, Dartmouth's acceptance rate was around 15%.
A highly selective policy leads to the development of a brand that others recognise. For example, the Indian Institute of Technologies (IITs) accept 2% of the applicants, the University of Tokyo accepts 1% of the applications. Such a stringent selective policy means that the graduates are viewed as top-notch and capable of making highly valued contributions to their chosen field.
Bill Gates has said that if there was one feature of the IITs that he would never change, it would be the philosophy of respecting merit above everything else. This is also seen in certain types of marketing ads. For instance one of the John West advertisements on canned fish claims that the quality of their fish is determined by the fish they do not catch. If one has to claim one is the best in the field, then there is immediate suspicion that one is not the best. It is better for others to say that one is the best -- such claims need no justification. A highly selective policy enables others to attach the ``best'' tag.
Research is usually viewed as the only way to increase the reputation of a University. Again this is not strictly true. Dartmouth again is a good example. It is certain a good research University. But it does not compare with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Cornell etc. The IITs are also a good example. The research conducted at the IITs is good but not that significant. The reputation of a teaching focussed university can be enhanced if one can enable the graduates to find research scholarships positions in top Universities. Being a feeder to large Universities can build a reputation. For example, if 20% of our students went to the top research Universities in the world, we will be noticed and our teaching will be applauded. For this to occur we need to encourage our UG students to do research and embark on a research career.
If many students take up research positions in top Universities, it might affect the current statistics of ``starting salaries'' -- most PhD students are paid a small stipend which is much less than any starting salary. But the trade-off will be in increased reputation generated by our graduates getting higher degrees from the very best of research Universities.
All this requires a very long term view -- so most business cycles and reward mechanisms are not accurate. The GFC has shown that the usual business approach does not lead to long term achievement. It only encourages short term risky positions. But a University should aim for an increased reputation over the next 50 years and eschew strategies that are purely short term.
In this note I will focus on two points, selective intake and feeder to top research Universities as possible steps to improve reputation.
In this context the progress of Dartmouth University is relevant. In the initial days it was a relatively poor and unknown College. But today with its large endowments it is a prestigious University, even though it is the smallest of the Ivy League Universities.
Personally, I think selective admission is what lead to the increase in Dartmouth's reputation. While resources are important, perception of the general public is also relevant.
In 2007, Dartmouth's acceptance rate was around 15%.
A highly selective policy leads to the development of a brand that others recognise. For example, the Indian Institute of Technologies (IITs) accept 2% of the applicants, the University of Tokyo accepts 1% of the applications. Such a stringent selective policy means that the graduates are viewed as top-notch and capable of making highly valued contributions to their chosen field.
Bill Gates has said that if there was one feature of the IITs that he would never change, it would be the philosophy of respecting merit above everything else. This is also seen in certain types of marketing ads. For instance one of the John West advertisements on canned fish claims that the quality of their fish is determined by the fish they do not catch. If one has to claim one is the best in the field, then there is immediate suspicion that one is not the best. It is better for others to say that one is the best -- such claims need no justification. A highly selective policy enables others to attach the ``best'' tag.
Research is usually viewed as the only way to increase the reputation of a University. Again this is not strictly true. Dartmouth again is a good example. It is certain a good research University. But it does not compare with Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Cornell etc. The IITs are also a good example. The research conducted at the IITs is good but not that significant. The reputation of a teaching focussed university can be enhanced if one can enable the graduates to find research scholarships positions in top Universities. Being a feeder to large Universities can build a reputation. For example, if 20% of our students went to the top research Universities in the world, we will be noticed and our teaching will be applauded. For this to occur we need to encourage our UG students to do research and embark on a research career.
If many students take up research positions in top Universities, it might affect the current statistics of ``starting salaries'' -- most PhD students are paid a small stipend which is much less than any starting salary. But the trade-off will be in increased reputation generated by our graduates getting higher degrees from the very best of research Universities.
All this requires a very long term view -- so most business cycles and reward mechanisms are not accurate. The GFC has shown that the usual business approach does not lead to long term achievement. It only encourages short term risky positions. But a University should aim for an increased reputation over the next 50 years and eschew strategies that are purely short term.
posted by PK at
9:41 PM
0 Comments
