Levin is the president of Yale University.
As never before in their long history, universities have become instruments of national competition as well as instruments of peace. They are the locus of the scientific discoveries that move economies forward, and the primary means of educating the talent required to obtain and maintain competitive advantage. But at the same time, the opening of national borders to the flow of goods, services, information and especially people has made universities a powerful force for global integration, mutual understanding and geopolitical stability.
In response to the same forces that have propelled the world economy, universities have become more self-consciously global: seeking students from around the world who represent the entire spectrum of cultures and values, sending their own students abroad to prepare them for global careers, offering courses of study that address the challenges of an interconnected world and collaborative research programs to advance science for the benefit of all humanity.
Of the forces shaping higher education none is more sweeping than the movement across borders. Over the past three decades the number of students leaving home each year to study abroad has grown at an annual rate of 3.9 percent, from 800,000 in 1975 to 2.5 million in 2004. Most travel from one developed nation to another, but the flow from developing to developed countries is growing rapidly. The reverse flow, from developed to developing countries, is on the rise, too. Today foreign students earn 30 percent of the doctoral degrees awarded in the United States and 38 percent of those in the United Kingdom. And the number crossing borders for undergraduate study is growing as well, to 8 percent of the undergraduates at America's Ivy League institutions and 10 percent of all undergraduates in the U.K. In the United States, 20 percent of newly hired professors in science and engineering are foreign-born, and in China the vast majority of newly hired faculty at the top research universities received their graduate education abroad.
What are the consequences of these shifts among the highly educated? Consider this: on the night after the attacks on the World Trade Center, Jewish students at Yale (most of them American) came together with Muslim students (most of them foreign) to organize a vigil. Or this: every year the student-run Forum for American/Chinese Exchange at Stanford (FACES) organizes conferences in both China and at Stanford, bringing together students from both countries chosen to discuss Sino-U.S. relations with leading experts. The leaders of student groups promoting international collaboration are in touch with each other daily via e-mail and Skype, technologies that not only facilitate cooperative projects but also increase the likelihood of creating lifelong personal ties. The bottom line: the flow of students across national borders--students who are disproportionately likely to become leaders in their home countries--enables deeper mutual understanding, tolerance and global integration.
As part of this, universities are encouraging students to spend some of their undergraduate experience in another country. In Europe, more than 140,000 students participate in the Erasmus program each year, taking courses for credit in one of 2,200 participating institutions across the continent. And in the United States, institutions are mobilizing their alumni to help place students in summer internships abroad to prepare them for global careers. Yale and Harvard have led the way, offering every undergraduate at least one international study or internship opportunity--and providing the financial resources to make it possible. Universities are also establishing more-ambitious foreign outposts to serve students primarily from the local market rather than the parent campus. And true educational joint ventures are gaining favor, such as the 20-year-old Johns Hopkins-Nanjing program in Chinese and American Studies, the Duke Goethe executive M.B.A. program and the MIT-Singapore alliance, which offers dual graduate degrees in a variety of engineering fields.
Globalization is also reshaping the way research is done. One new trend involves sourcing portions of a research program to another country. Yale professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator Tian Xu directs a research center focused on the genetics of human disease at his alma mater, Shanghai's Fudan University, in collaboration with faculty colleagues from both schools. The Shanghai center has 95 employees and graduate students working in a 4,300-square-meter laboratory facility. Yale faculty, postdocs and graduate students visit regularly and attend videoconference seminars with scientists from both campuses. The arrangement benefits both countries; Xu's Yale lab is more productive, thanks to the lower costs of conducting research in China, and Chinese graduate students, postdocs and faculty get on-the-job training from a world-class scientist and his U.S. team.
Yale has a similar facility at Peking University in Beijing, where Prof. Xing-Wang Deng directs a program studying the biology of plant systems, aimed at improving crops. Like Xu, Deng is a graduate of the institution where he performs his research. But it is only a matter of time before China starts to set up similar facilities for outstanding foreign scientists who have no prior connection to the country.
Given NEWSWEEK's rankings, it's not surprising that nations seeking advancement are looking closely at America's research universities as a model. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, technological change has been the principal source of economic growth and a rising standard of living. But in the past half century, technological progress has become dependent on scientific advances and their translation to practice--a process that requires both public and private investment. After the second world war, the United States recognized that maintaining its leadership in defense technology required substantial public investment in university-based science. By the mid-1950s the United States had designated public support for university research for the basic sciences as well as for health, agriculture, defense and energy.
As a result of its strength in science, the United States has consistently led the world in the commercialization of major new technologies, from the mainframe computer and the integrated circuit of the 1960s to the Internet infrastructure and applications software of the 1990s. The link between university-based science and industrial application is often indirect but sometimes highly visible: Silicon Valley was intentionally created by Stanford University, and Route 128 outside Boston has long housed companies spun off from MIT and Harvard. Around the world, governments have encouraged replication of this model, perhaps most successfully in Cambridge, England, where Microsoft and scores of other leading software and biotechnology companies have set up shop around the university. An impressive array of technology companies already surrounds some of the major campuses in China--notably Peking and Tsinghua universities in Beijing, and Fudan and Shanghai Jiatong universities in Shanghai.
Universities are also adapting more American research practices. Until recently, for instance, Japan allocated research funding in block grants, which wound up in the hands of the country's most senior--but not necessarily most productive--professors. But between 2000 and 2004, the country increased the volume of grants subject to competitive review by 57 percent, in an effort to direct funding to the more meritorious.
Even more-dramatic changes are taking place in China, where a number of leading universities, intent on attaining world-class status, have been carefully studying America's top institutions for new ideas. These include widening the search for new faculty well beyond their own graduates, establishing rigorous standards for awarding lifetime tenure and consulting with independent experts on personnel decisions. Several leading universities have ditched the traditional specialized undergraduate curriculum for a year or two of general education followed by free choice of a major field of study, as is common in the United States. Some are experimenting with using criteria other than national exams to admit students. And many elite universities are determined to abandon recitation in favor of classroom interaction that encourages students to think independently--a hopeful sign for those eager to see a fully democratic China.
Indeed, China is intent on playing all its cards. By investing heavily in research, tripling university enrollments between 1998 and 2004, and encouraging top students to think independently, the country is self-consciously using its universities as a means to stimulate economic growth. At the same time, since Deng Xiaoping first permitted Chinese students to seek education in the West in 1978, no country has made a more deliberate effort to send its most talented students abroad for a top education--especially at the graduate level. Today, in contrast to 10 or 20 years ago when economic opportunity was limited at home, most Chinese students return after graduation--often with an appreciation of the values of a free society and a greater understanding of the countries where they studied.
Europe, by contrast, has lost its competitive edge. According to "The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or Decay?" a devastating recent critique by Confederation of British Industry Director General Richard Lambert and Nick Butler, Chief of Strategic Planning at British Petroleum, European governments have systematically weakened their top universities, once the pride of the world. They have invested too little in research, spread limited resources across too many institutions, expanded enrollments without increasing faculty and refused to allow universities sufficient autonomy, the report says. To flourish, they need to concentrate more resources in the hands of the strongest universities and allow them to generate revenue by charging tuition fees like their U.S. counterparts--and awarding financial aid to those in greatest need.
For all its success, the United States remains deeply ambivalent about sustaining the research-university model. Most politicians recognize the link between investment in science and national economic strength, but support for research funding has been fitful and sporadic rather than steady. The budget of the National Institutes of Health doubled between 1998 and 2003, but has risen more slowly than inflation since then. Support for the physical sciences and engineering barely kept pace with inflation during that same period; legislation to double these expenditures in 10 years is currently pending. The attempt to make up lost ground is welcome, but the nation would be better served by steady, predictable increases in science funding at the rate of long-term GDP growth, which is on the order of inflation plus 3 percent per year.
American politicians have great difficulty recognizing that admitting more foreign students can greatly promote the national interest by increasing international understanding. Adjusted for inflation, public funding for international exchanges and foreign-language study is well below the levels of 40 years ago. In the wake of September 11, changes in the visa process caused a dramatic decline in the number of foreign students seeking admission to U.S. universities, and a corresponding surge in enrollments in Australia, Singapore and the U.K. Objections from American university and business leaders led to improvements in the process and a reversal of the decline, but the United States is still seen by many as unwelcoming to international students. An abortive attempt last year by the Commerce Department to extend the scope of export control regulations in university research labs reinforced this unfortunate signal.
Most Americans recognize that universities contribute to the nation's well-being through their scientific research, but many fear that foreign students threaten American competitiveness by taking their knowledge and skills back home. They fail to grasp that welcoming foreign students to the United States has two overriding positive effects: first, the very best of them stay in the States and--like immigrants throughout history--strengthen the nation; and second, foreign students who study in the United States become ambassadors for many of its most cherished values when they return home. Or at least they understand them better. In America as elsewhere, few instruments of foreign policy are as effective in promoting peace and stability as welcoming international university students.
