Universities and Civilizations E-Book

Franck Leprevost

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 343

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Since the publication of the first Shanghai ranking in 2003, the international rankings of universities have become evermore important. This book examines the evolution of higher education systems and the role of universities in contemporary societies, which are marked by increased competition and tensions. Investigating whether the dynamism of large universities is an accurate indicator of the intellectual life of their civilizations, Universities and Civilizations systematically analyzes the evolution of universities in several main rankings, from their creation until now. This analysis shows the rise of universities in China and parts of Europe, the decline of American and Japanese universities and the scant presence of universities in Russia, India, Africa and Latin America. This book suggests an overhaul of traditional models of academic cooperation and exchange in an era of growing international tensions and a time when people and knowledge are increasingly mobile.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Dedication

Title page

Copyright

Foreword

Preface: Elements of Genesis

Acknowledgements

1 The Origin of a Triptych

1.1. The sun is shining in Berkeley

1.2. Fukuyama versus Huntington: the revenge of civilizations in the 21st Century

1.3. The role of universities in the race for global intellectual leadership . .

1.4. Why? Where? How?

2 Why?

2.1. The purpose of universities

2.2. International rankings and world academic elite

2.3. What is the role of a leading university?

2.4. What are the reasons for the intellectual arms race?

3 Where?

3.1. The “Big Four” and their methodologies

3.2. Analysis of the Top 20

3.3. Analysis of the Top 200

3.4. Analysis of the Top 1000

4 How? From Russia with 5-100

4.1. The land of the Tsars, of snow and Doctor Zhivago

4.2. The Russian excellence initiative: the 5-100 program

4.3. The results of the 5-100 program in 2019

4.4. Obstacles to Russian academic excellence

4.5. Analysis and options: brain, heart and soul

5 Conclusion: Analysis and Perspectives

5.1. Winners of the race for global academic leadership

5.2. Europe – Paul Valéry’s anticipation

5.3. Universities for what? Automation, demographics and flow

5.4. Work and occupation: the need for a political project

5.5. Western civilization – the judgment of “elementary particles”

Appendices

Appendix 1. Huntington’s Country – Civilization Dictionary

Appendix 2. Top 20 Rankings

Appendix 3. Top 200 Rankings

Appendix 4. Top 1000 Rankings

Appendix 5. Continental and Western Europe

Appendix 6. Europe: 5 + 1

Notes, Insertions and Tangents

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Illustrations

Appendix 2

Figure A2.1. Top 20 – THE

Figure A2.2. Top 20 – QS

Figure A2.3. Top 20 – Leiden

Figure A2.4. Top 20 – Shanghai

Appendix 3

Figure A3.1. Top 200 – THE (flagship countries)

Figure A3.2. Top 200 – THE (flagship countries by percentage)

Figure A3.3. Top 200 – THE (civilizations)

Figure A3.4. Top 200 – THE (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A3.5. Top 200 – QS (flagship countries)

Figure A3.6. Top 200 – QS (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A3.7. Top 200 – QS (civilizations)

Figure A3.8. Top 200 – QS (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A3.9. Top 200 – Leiden (flagship countries)

Figure A3.10. Top 200 – Leiden (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A3.11. Top 200 – Leiden (civilizations)

Figure A3.12. Top 200 – Leiden (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A3.13. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries)

Figure A3.14. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A3.15. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations)

Figure A3.16. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations b y percentage)

Appendix 4

Figure A4.1. Top 1000 – THE (flagship countries)

Figure A4.2. Top 1000 – THE (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A4.3. Top 1000 – THE (civilizations)

Figure A4.4. Top 1000 – THE (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A4.5. Top 1000 – QS (flagship countries)

Figure A4.6. Top 1000 – QS (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A4.7. Top 1000 – QS (civilizations)

Figure A4.8. Top 1000 – QS (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A4.9. Top 1000 – Leiden (flagship countries)

Figure A4.10. Top 1000 – Leiden (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A4.11. Top 1000 – Leiden (civilizations)

Figure A4.12. Top 1000 – Leiden (civilizations b y percentage)

Figure A4.13. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries)

Figure A4.14. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries b y percentage)

Figure A4.15. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations)

Figure A4.16. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations b y percentage)

Appendix 6

Figure A6.1. Top 200 – THE (Europe)

Figure A6.2. Top 200 – QS (Europe)

Figure A6.3. Top 200 – Leiden (Europe)

Figure A6.4. Top 200 – Shanghai (Europe)

Figure A6.5. Top 1000 – THE (Europe)

Figure A6.6. Top 1000 – QS (Europe)

Figure A6.7. Top 1000 – Leiden (Europe)

Figure A6.8. Top 1000 – Shanghai (Europe)

List of Tables

Chapter 3

Table 3.1. THE – Indicators – Weights

Table 3.2. QS – Indicators – Weights

Table 3.3. ARWU – Indicators – Weights

Table 3.4. Top 20 – THE

Table 3.5. Top 20 – QS

Table 3.6. Top 20 – Leiden

Table 3.7. Top 20 – Shanghai (2003–2010)

Table 3.8. Top 20 – Shanghai (2011–2019)

Table 3.9. Top 20 – Big Four

Table 3.10. Top 200 – THE (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.11. Top 200 – QS (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.12. Top 200 – Leiden (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.13. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries by percentage, 2003–2010)

Table 3.14. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries by percentage, 2011–2019)

Table 3.15. Top 200 – THE (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.16. Top 200 – QS (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.17. Top 200 – Leiden (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.18. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations by percentage, 2003–2010)

Table 3.19. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations by percentage, 2011–2019)

Table 3.20. Top 1000 – THE (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.21. Top 1000 – QS (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.22. Top 1000 – Leiden (flagship countries by percentage)

Table 3.23. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries by percentage, 2003–2010)

Table 3.24. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries by percentage, 2011–2019)

Table 3.25. Top 1000 – THE (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.26. Top 1000 – QS (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.27. Top 1000 – Leiden (civilizations by percentage)

Table 3.28. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations by percentage, 2003–2010)

Table 3.29. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations by percentage, 2011–2019)

Table 3.30. Evolution of the Big Four – Islamic countries

Table 3.31. Evolution of the Big Four – Latin American countries

Table 3.32. Evolution of the Big Four – Orthodox countries

Chapter 4

Table 4.1. Project 5-100 - Budget (source: Ministry of Science and Higher Educat...

Table 4.2. Project 5-100 – Budget breakdown (source: Ministry of Science and Hig...

Table 4.3. Rankings of the Russian universities supported by the Project 5-100

Chapter 5

Table 5.1. Rankings of universities belonging to CWE countries

Appendix 1

Table A1.1. Huntington’s country–civilization dictionary

Appendix 2

Table A2.1. Top 20 – THE

Table A2.2. Top 20 – QS

Table A2.3. Top 20 – Leiden

Table A2.4. Top 20 – Shanghai (2003–2010)

Table A2.5. Top 20 – Shanghai (2011–2019)

Appendix 3

Table A3.1. Top 200 – THE (all countries)

Table A3.2. Top 200 – THE (flagship countries)

Table A3.3. Top 200 – THE (civilizations)

Table A3.4. Top 200 – QS (all countries)

Table A3.5. Top 200 – QS (flagship countries)

Table A3.6. Top 200 – QS (civilizations)

Table A3.7. Top 200 – Leiden (all countries)

Table A3.8. Top 200 – Leiden (flagship countries)

Table A3.9. Top 200 – Leiden (civilizations)

Table A3.10. Top 200 – Shanghai (all countries, 2003–2010)

Table A3.11. Top 200 – Shanghai (all countries, 2011–2019)

Table A3.12. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries, 2003–2010)

Table A3.13. Top 200 – Shanghai (flagship countries, 2011–2019)

Table A3.14. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations, 2003–2010)

Table A3.15. Top 200 – Shanghai (civilizations, 2011–2019)

Appendix 4

Table A4.1. Top 1000 – THE (flagship countries)

Table A4.2. Top 1000 – THE (civilizations)

Table A4.3. Top 1000 – QS (flagship countries)

Table A4.4. Top 1000 – QS (civilizations)

Table A4.5. Top 1000 – Leiden (flagship countries)

Table A4.6. Top 1000 – Leiden (civilizations)

Table A4.7. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries, 2003–2010)

Table A4.8. Top 1000 – Shanghai (flagship countries, 2011–2019)

Table A4.9. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations, 2003–2010)

Table A4.10. Top 1000 – Shanghai (civilizations, 2011–2019)

Appendix 5

Table A5.1. Top 200 – THE (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.2. Top 200 – QS (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.3. Top 200 – CWTS (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.4. Top 200 – ARWU (Western and Continental Europe, 2003–2010)

Table A5.5. Top 200 – Shanghai (Western and Continental Europe, 2011–2019)

Table A5.6. Top 1000 – THE (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.7. Top 1000 – QS (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.8. Top 1000 – CWTS (Western and Continental Europe)

Table A5.9. Top 1000 – ARWU (Western and Continental Europe, 2003–2010)

Appendix 6

Table A6.1. Top 200 – THE (Europe)

Table A6.2. Top 200 – QS (Europe)

Table A6.3. Top 200 – Leiden (Europe)

Table A6.4. Top 200 – Shanghai (Europe, 2003–2010)

Table A6.5. Top 200 – Shanghai (Europe, 2011–2019)

Table A6.6. Top 1000 – THE (Europe)

Table A6.7. Top 1000 – QS (Europe)

Table A6.8. Top 1000 – Leiden (Europe)

Table A6.9. Top 1000 – Shanghai (Europe, 2003–2010)

Table A6.10. Top 1000 – Shanghai (Europe, 2011–2019)

Notes, Insertions and Tangents

Table N.1. Comparison between EU countries

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Dedication

Title page

Copyright

Foreword

Preface: Elements of Genesis

Acknowledgements

Begin Reading

Notes, Insertions and Tangents

References

Index

End User License Agreement

Pages

v

ii

iii

iv

vii

viii

ix

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

109

110

111

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

215

216

217

“Elsewhere” is a more beautiful word than “Tomorrow”

Paul Morand

To my mother Geneviève and my aunt Evelyne

To my son Cédric

Series Editor

Jean-Charles Pomerol

Universities and Civilizations

Worldwide Academic Competition and Geopolitics

Franck Leprévost

First published 2020 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd

27-37 St George’s Road

London SW19 4EU

UK

www.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

111 River Street

Hoboken, NJ 07030

USA

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2020

The rights of Franck Leprévost to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020942264

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78630-668-5

Foreword

When they published the first edition of the Shanghai International University Ranking in 2003, the three researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University who are responsible for this initiative probably didn’t imagine that they were writing a new page in the world history of higher education. Firstly, they created emulators, since several commercial companies (Times Higher Education – THE, US News and World Report, Quacquarelli Symonds – QS) and government agencies (Russia, Taiwan) had copied them by launching their own international ranking. Secondly, they have had a profound influence on the behavior of many players who were directly or indirectly linked to the world of higher education: students looking for the most prestigious universities to continue their studies, business leaders anxious to recruit graduates from the best universities, and above all, university leaders increasingly obsessed by their institution’s position in the various international rankings. And finally, they were used to convince a growing number of heads of state to grant significant financial resources for the development of world-class universities, that would worthily represent the intellectual and scientific level of the countries in question.

Over the past decade, several authors have been working to dissect the methodology of university rankings and to expose methodological flaws. Others have studied the impact of these rankings, looking at the transformation strategies of universities seeking to move up the rankings, as well as the “excellence initiatives” adopted by countries seeking to revitalize their underperforming university systems. However, none, to date, have succeeded in doing what Professor Leprévost undertook with his fascinating book on “universities and civilizations”. Not only has he dissected the methodology of the main rankings and carefully analyzed some of the excellence initiatives, particularly the Russian one, he is also the first to reset the course for academic excellence, induced by university rankings in a more global context. Indeed, one of the most interesting contributions of this new book is the analysis of the relationship between the evolution of university policies and the political, economic and cultural context of the civilizations in which they have evolved.

The author of this very well-documented work, Professor Leprévost, former Vice-Rector of the University of Luxembourg (an institution that has had an impressive track record despite its young age), challenges the reader to examine the recent evolution of major research universities in the context of the clash of great civilizations, carefully studied by Samuel Huntington in his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations. Examining university strategies from the perspective of civilizations is an original approach that allows us to place the impact of international rankings in a relevant geopolitical context, and to more easily understand the diversity of national responses to geopolitical issues. The fundamental question put forward by the author is whether the dynamism of major universities is an adequate indicator of the intellectual vitality of the civilizations from which they originate.

This original analytical approach sheds new light on the rise of Chinese universities, the decline of American public universities that are increasingly deprived of resources by the States that fund them, the decline of Japanese universities reluctant to play the internationalization card, the efforts of French and German universities to rise in the rankings, or the absence of universities in India, Africa (except South Africa) and Latin America. In this context, Professor Leprévost devotes a fascinating chapter to Russia, studying the “5-100” initiative in detail, which is aimed at placing five universities among the top 100 in the world. This chapter sheds interesting light on the record of investment by the Russian government and the characteristics of the university system, inherited from the Soviet era, that hamper the development of Russian universities, such as the separation between research academies and universities, and governance arrangements reflecting a mentality of control from the national authorities.

This book on “universities and civilizations” evokes a world of increased competition and a break with a long history of cooperation, exchange and collaboration between academic institutions and the teacher-researchers who populate them. It challenges the reader with a series of key questions on the evolution of higher education systems and the role of universities in contemporary societies: are international rankings a revealing indicator of a new geostrategy of knowledge? What is the role of cutting-edge universities? To what extent are excellence initiatives part of the panoply of strategic actions that are deployed by countries to maintain or improve their position among nations? Does the evolution of the ranking of the best universities shed light on the vitality of the civilizations they belong to? To answer these questions, Professor Leprévost reviews the reasons why some countries are investing in their universities, in search of new intellectual and economic leadership: a desire for political power, the definition of higher education as industry, efforts to diversify the economy, and the ambition to increasingly rely on the knowledge economy as an engine of development.

The answers in this book are organized in three main chapters. First, Professor Leprévost identifies leading universities on the basis of their results in the main international rankings. He then examines their geographical position within the framework of the seven great civilizations defined by Samuel Huntington. After a very instructive detour through Russia, he finally looks at the role of leading universities in contemporary societies and the tension between the traditional logic of contributing to the public good, and the distortions introduced by the new conception of education as a private investment.

Professor Leprévost ends his book with an incursion into the world of literature, evoking in turn Paul Valéry, Virginie Despentes, Ian Manook and Michel Houellebecq. This last part is an unprecedented way of illustrating, through a few well-chosen quotations, the evolution of contemporary society and its universities under the weight of demographic trends and technological change, resulting in the increasing automation and robotization of production processes. Allow yourself to be seduced by this original book which, with undeniable writing talent, paints a picture of international rankings and higher education, skillfully mixing geopolitics, the world of universities and literature.

Jamil SALMIInternational expert in university transformation; distinguished Professor of Higher Education Policy at Diego Portales University (Santiago de Chile)Washington DCAugust 2020

PrefaceElements of Genesis

“Where are you going?” the boy asked.

“Far out to come in when the wind shifts.

I want to be out before it is light.”

Ernest Hemingway (1952, p. 3).

The first ideas for this work were jotted down on paper in 2016 while I was living in St. Petersburg, Russia. The initial project involved writing an article on Russian universities by only looking at the international rankings established by Times Higher Education. Many footnotes were already covering the content; limiting oneself to the Times ranking alone was becoming less common. Attending a workshop at MIT in Boston and a conference in Berkeley led me to rethink things. The thinking became more refined as the article grew (without, however, guaranteeing the transfer of proportions). Some ideas were specific to the Russian context, while others took on a more generic turn. The article became a short memo. Then, the idea of writing a book came up, along with the hesitations and doubts that such a long-term commitment implies. Therefore, while writing the book, we decided to make it short and compact to preserve our breath. The book continued to be enriched with new incisions and footnotes, as old ones migrated and mutated into sketches of new paragraphs and chapters. I was aiming for a maximum of 26,000 words like The Old Man and the Sea (Hemingway 1952). The comparison with Hemingway ends there: I went overboard.

After a deviation of nearly 62,000 words, you have to stop yourself. This does not imply just writing the final word (or pause). It also means choosing the title and subheading. This is not necessarily the easiest thing to do, all the more so, since it is a matter of making the author’s wishes converge with those of the publisher. Lastly, “universities and civilizations” sums up the substance of the book quite well. While everyone more or less agrees on the meaning of the first term, using the second more risky, especially in contemporary academia, and if one takes Huntington’s point of view on these issues. However, to a large extent, the relevance of “the clash of civilizations” analysed by Huntington remains key today. Therefore, I assume responsibility for these choices, risk and title. Of course, the outlines of such a project should be specified; this is the purpose of the subheading. However, comfort dictates selecting a cautiously neutral subheading. A different choice has been made by weighing this cautious neutrality of the subheading against a less consensual approach. Indeed, the subtitle uses a word which, in recent years, has gradually become taboo in the academic sphere and beyond, like many other words, incidentally. This sulphurous word is “competition”. Yet, whether one likes the word or not, it exists. Indeed, there is de facto a global competition among universities to attract the best students, the best professors and the best academic leaders. Even if it existed in less visible forms before, the publication of the first Shanghai ranking in 2003 gave this competition a planetary impetus. Moreover, even if some have global objectives, universities contribute to and are part of the countries where they are established. Noting the absence or surprised by the weak positioning of some of their academic institutions in international rankings, several countries have initiated policies to remedy this situation. These actions give a geopolitical and even a strategic dimension to State policy in academic affairs. “Worldwide academic competition and geopolitics” specifies the relationship between universities and civilizations that I try to address in this work, where a sketch of the dynamics in force and of the variations of amplitudes is drawn, thanks to an analysis of world universities rankings over time. May this analysis also serve to shed light on the understanding of State policy in university matters.

The (methodical) reader traditionally begins a book by reading the preface. However, the preface, as is the case here, is often the last thing the author writes (before getting down to the “polishing” of the text and the editorial discussions). He explains certain choices, sets out his final thoughts and shares his more or less melancholy questions about what will happen next, as an existential void begins to appear.

Before the Foreword, which Jamil Salmi did me the honor of writing, the book opens with a quotation. This quote by Paul Morand would be more than enough to answer what comes “after”. However, it touches on a more substantial personal plan. It reflects, for example, what led me to accept responsibilities outside of France, positions where I could act, build and forge, whereas such opportunities in my native country would (at least at the time) have required too much time, taken on too bland forms, and been subject to too many hazards. Then, from there, to expose myself with curiosity to very varied ways of thinking and realities, expressed in multiple languages in many countries on different continents. This “elsewhere” gives an understanding and a life experience for which I am grateful. Not only because it feeds into this book. To me, “elsewhere” is more beautiful than “tomorrow” but has never meant that “yesterday” was to be banished, let alone to forget the country where I was born, and in which I participate. At the opposite end of the contemporary spectrum – the paradoxical (and often little-known) result of globalization’s encounter with Karl Marx – I am not a citizen of the world, just as no one else is. Some people claim that, that’s all. By talking about important phenomena in countries that are beacons of civilizations, by talking about the dynamism of some and the weaknesses or inconsistencies of others, by showing what is happening elsewhere, how it is happening and with what impact, this book also revolves around France1.

What will happen after this book? Maybe this work will be taken up again someday. The first way of revising this book would of course be to update the chapters. The second way, compatible with the first and favored by the “modular” architecture of the book, would be to add new chapters focusing on certain countries that are not fully covered here, or on certain civilizations. In this case, a balance would have to be found between priority and temptation. Indeed, civilizations and their flagship countries (in a sense that will be given below), or their important countries, are neither equally prioritized in general, nor equally tempting to me in particular. In the event of a divergence between the intensities of the two notions – a tempting, but not priority country versus a priority country, but less tempting – I will probably give nature its rights and thus give temptation primacy over priority. A third way would be to take certain footnotes or incisions and promote them as new chapters, or even new books. Topics are indeed abundant. It would be useful to carry out studies – some of them comparative – on university financing models and the related issue of student debt2; on the societal impact and global trends of universities focused on the transmission of knowledge, and not on its creation; on thematic rankings of leading universities, particularly by looking at countries that heavily invest in deep learning technologies, artificial intelligence and data storage capacities; on national university systems3 (where a number of small countries would probably do well, if not very well); on the evaluation and accreditation of university and research structures (a separate but related topic from the one we are dealing with here); and on the challenge that the reader will discover at the end of this book.

We shall see.

Whatever happens, from the summer of 2019, with its alternating heat waves and torrential downpours, to the coronavirus in the spring of 2020, the fine-tuning of this book has been carried out with enthusiasm and without any melancholy. My marriage to Anna in Normandy had a lot to do with it.

Barneville – LUXEMBOURGAugust 2020

Acknowledgements

In 2016, I had the privilege of taking a sabbatical year after 10 years in top management at the University of Luxembourg (UL). This was a perfect time to take a step back (literally and figuratively, although I remained responsible for the UL international rankings) and risks (figuratively only). Specifically, I strongly wished to move out of both the thematic comfort sphere and the civilizational and cultural sphere. Taking a deep breath of fresh air and discovering what I didn’t know yet – but had long been tempted by – led me to spend about three months at the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), then almost nine months at the Peter the Great Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University (Polytech) in Russia.

As I gradually came to understand the operating system of the EIB and the EIF, discussions with my contacts on the projects of these institutions taught me to think more holistically than I had done up to then. These exchanges also fostered the desire to structure disparate reflections on higher education and research in a broad framework. May those who made this stay possible and nurtured these discussions find the expression of my gratitude here, notably Henry von Blumenthal, Guy Clausse, Jacques Darcy, Rémy Jacob, Francisco de Paula Coelho, Fulceri Bruni Roccia, Bruno Rossignol and Marjut Santoni.

I left the world of European finance in the spring of 2016 to join the world of Russian universities. I had the chance to be a Guest Professor and Senior Advisor to the Rector of Polytech, at a time when this institution was strongly developing its national visibility thanks to the 5-100 excellence program. This stay made it possible to complete certain scientific work that had been neglected. It also provided an in vivo experience of Russian academic life. This was made possible through the following people, whom I would like to thank wholeheartedly: Andrei Rudskoy, Rector of Polytech, Dmitry Arseniev, his Vice-Rector in charge of international relations, Vyacheslav Shkodyrev, Tetiana Kovalenko, Elena Selivanova, Nikita Golovin, Yuri Klutchkoi, and the Polytech strategic planning office team.

More generally, I am indebted to the representatives of Russian higher education and research institutions for the countless discussions that have sharpened my understanding of the national academic system and the 5-100 excellence program. In particular, Alexander Shestakov, Rector of South Ural State University (one of the 21 universities in the program), Andrey Radionov, Vice-Rector, and Gleb Radchenko, Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science, helped me to understand the impact and importance of the Russian excellence program for their university located in an industrial region, far from Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Their insights were incomparably useful. I thank them warmly for this.

During the 2018–2019 academic year, the opportunity arose to contribute to the work of the expertise and consultancy mission (mission expertise et conseil – MEC) of the DGESIP1 of the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. This experience has enabled me to get back in touch with the higher education and research landscape of France, and to better perceive its evolutions. I would like to thank Brigitte Plateau and Anne-Sophie Barthez, the successive Directors-General of DGESIP during this period, as well as Danièle Kerneis, Head of the MEC, and all the advisers and experts both from this structure and from the Ministry more broadly, in particular Jean Bouvier d’Yvoire. This dive into France was invigorating. It provided material for a reflection still in the making on the place of academic France in international competition, but which began to be expressed in my conferences in Toulouse (annual congress of directors of services of French universities) in June 2019, and in Paris (joint DGESIP-DGRI2 conference of the Ministry) in November of the same year. May their organizers be warmly thanked here.

Thanks to my family for their help. In integrating the graphs and tables, particularly in Chapter 3 and the Appendices, my wife has taken on a dry and technical task, compensated for by the satisfaction of being at the forefront of the trends of the world’s academic elite. The sharp and uncompromising gazes of my mother and aunt reduced several adventurous initiatives in syntax, grammar and spelling to nothing.

Successive versions of this work have benefited from discussions with Phil Altbach and the attentive reading of Nicolas Bernard, Jean Bouvier d’Yvoire, Pierre-Armand Michel, Virginie Mucciante, Antoine Petit, Guy Poos, Jamil Salmi, Rolf Tarrach and Hilligje van’t Land. They are warmly thanked for the discussions about this text.

The opinions given here are, however, solely binding to the author. Including possible errors.

“To have another language is to possess a second soul,” said Charlemagne. During a stay in Ukraine, I asked Tetiana Kuchynska, then-Head of the international relations office at the Kiev Polytechnic Institute, if she knew someone who could teach the basics of Russian to a total beginner with a brain slowed down by the weight of years. Nadiia Kravchenko, a young master’s student at KPI, allowed me to take the first steps in this new language in Kiev, the cradle of Orthodox civilization and the Rus’ people. Later, in Saint Petersburg, Irina Baranova, Professor and Head of the center for learning Russian as a foreign language at Polytech, patiently pursued my initiation in to the meanders of this beautiful Slavic language for nine months. A Chekhovian trilogy for a priceless gift. Tetiana entrusted me to Nadiia. Nadiia prepared me for Irina. The three of them opened the door for me to the Russian language and thus to the Russian soul. How can I thank them?

I’m at a loss for words.

1

DGESIP:

Direction générale de l’enseignement supérieur et de l’insertion professionnelle

– Directorate general for higher education and professional integration.

2

DGRI:

Direction générale de la recherche et de l’innovation

– Research and Innovation Branch.

1The Origin of a Triptych

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.

I learn by going where I have to go.

We think by feeling. What is there to know?

I hear my being dance from ear to ear.

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Of those so close beside me, which are you?

God bless the Ground! I shall walk softly there,

And learn by going where I have to go.

Light takes the Tree; but who can tell us how?

The lowly worm climbs up a winding stair;

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Great Nature has another thing to do

To you and me; so take the lively air,

And, lovely, learn by going where to go.

This shaking keeps me steady. I should know.

What falls away is always. And is near.

I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

I learn by going where I have to go.

Theodore Roethke – “The Waking”

(Roethke 1966, p. 104)

1.1. The sun is shining in Berkeley

The sun is shining in Berkeley this September 2016. The presidents, vice presidents, and representatives of some of the world’s top universities, however, are not taking advantage of California’s fine weather. Gathered at the World Universities Summit, they are debating the challenges of higher education and high-level research in a pleasantly air-conditioned room with the curtains firmly drawn.

At around 5 p.m., a new round-table discussion ends in the tradition of all events organized by Times Higher Education. Argumentative, consensual and without great surprise. The chairman opens the question-and-answer session. They follow one another. Argumentative, consensual and without great surprise.

Until...

A finger rises in the audience. Its owner, an American professor, speaks. His address recalled that American universities had benefited greatly from public funding during the Cold War. Referring to a book published in 1997 (Chomsky et al. 1997), with chapters by nine academics, he pointed out that this funding, however, had a tendency to melt like snow in the sun, as East-West political relations had warmed up. As tensions between the United States and Russia or between the United States and China return – and are likely to continue in some form or another regardless of who becomes president1 of the United States – will history repeat itself? Will America’s public universities2 (whose direct federal resources have been in steady decline for decades) experience a new golden age and their researchers be given new levels of funding? The answer was as expected: cautious, consensus-seeking, and expressing virtuous hope for a renewal of government funding for American universities, independent of any international tension.

It is natural, however, to extend this question and the idea behind it: more generally, do the international tensions in the world have, or will they have, a global impact on universities, especially those who are global leaders3, some of which were gathered at the Berkeley Congress? Is there a geopolitical reading of the various excellence initiatives that a number of countries have launched in recent years? Beyond the nations themselves, can we go so far as to shed light, in terms of civilizations, on the global landscape of higher education and cutting-edge research? In other words, does the evolution of the ranking of the best universities say something about the vitality of the civilizations to which they belong? Are international rankings becoming a revealing thermometer of a geostrategy of knowledge?

These questions are, of course, so broad that it would be illusory to attempt to give a definitive answer, especially in this section, which is intended as an introductory overview.

1.2. Fukuyama versus Huntington: the revenge of civilizations in the 21st Century

Nevertheless, let us try to give an initial justification for their relevance. The question from the American professor at Berkeley first of all refers to a situation that emerged from the Cold War. This implicitly ended4 with the fall of the USSR in 1991, thus putting an end to the “short” 20th Century that began in 1914 with the First World War.

This end was seen as a deliverance that went far beyond what was perceived as the cessation of East-West tensions. For many observers, capitalist and liberal ideology had won, and communist ideology had lost. This victory of one ideology over the other was to mark, in their view, the end of the great conflicts and open an infinite period of near-planetary peace: “the end of history”, to quote Francis Fukuyama’s famous prophecy5 about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

However, as early as the summer of 1993, Samuel Huntington published an article in the Foreign Affairs journal entitled “The Clash of Civilizations?” (Huntington 1993). In view of the controversy generated by this article on all continents6, the Harvard professor decided to develop his analysis of the world in a more substantial work. He would do so again three years later with his now famous 500-page book: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (Huntington 1996). The reasonable doubt he had in 1993 is no longer relevant in 1996: the question mark at the top of his article disappeared from the title of his book.

The very rich substance of Huntington’s work goes far beyond7 the scope of this chapter in describing the genesis of a thought. Let us content ourselves by summarizing the main message here: history is not finished with us; new conflicts of great magnitude will arise; these conflicts will no longer be based on ideologies, but on differences of civilizations and therefore on differences of cultures. Huntington gives the following definition of civilization in the second chapter of Part I of his book:

A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he strongly identifies. Civilizations are the biggest “we” within which we feel culturally at home as distinguished from all the other “thems” out there. (Huntington 1996, p. 43)

In the third chapter of Part I (Huntington 1996, pp. 56–78), he develops his argument to contest the very existence of a “universal civilization”, and justifies the fact that the “bigger us” opposing all the other “them” are the civilizations he designates and defines, and that they are strict parts of all humanity. In other words, the whole of humanity certainly distinguishes man from other animal species, but does not constitute a civilization. It merely encompasses civilizations, which is already a broad agenda. Let us jump to Huntington’s conclusion of this chapter:

It would, as Braudel observes, almost “be childish” to think that modernization or “the triumph of civilization in the singular” would lead to the end of the plurality of historical cultures embodied for centuries in the world’s great civilizations. Modernization, instead, strengthens those cultures and reduces the relative power of the West. In fundamental ways, the world is becoming more modern and less Western. (Huntington 1996, p. 78)