BLOGS The President’s thoughts

Improving the gender imbalance has been a high priority issue at KTH. While there has been some progress in this area, it has been sluggish in certain respects. We need to continue working hard to achieve a greater gender balance among students and faculty personnel.

The proportion of female students at first-cycle and second-cycle level is increasing slowly. Among new admissions to the masters of engineering and architecture programmes in 2012, 32% were women, compared with 29% five years earlier. The figures vary slightly from year to year but there is a steady increase.

The information department recently performed a survey among presumptive female students. It yielded a number of interesting observations that we need to incorporate both in the way we present KTH and plan our study environments.

An individual, relationship-building external communication clearly has a much greater impact than, say, advertising campaigns in the mass media. In addition to highlighting female examples we need to communicate the strong sense of community among students at KTH and portray Stockholm as a student city. Important for attracting more female students to KTH’s study programmes is also an increased number of female teachers.

The proportion of women at KTH’s faculty is outgrowing the proportion of female students, albeit from low levels.

If you compare 2012 and 2007, the number of female professors has risen by 81% and the number of female associate professors by 79%. The corresponding increase among male professors and associate professors is 6% and 11% respectively. The proportion of women professors is now 11% (7% in 2007) and for women associate professors it is 22% (15% in 2007).

The healthy trend of recent years needs to continue. What is needed now is hard work at every level. In the next few years we will be creating a number of new faculty posts. I want to see requirements on the inclusion of strong female candidates to fill the new vacancies.

At today’s management group meeting I will initiate a discussion about the distribution of research funding resources ahead of 2014. New faculty funding totalling SEK 36 million has been made available by the Swedish Research and Innovation Bill. This is accompanied by the effect of the price and salary indexing and freed-up strategic initiatives.

In my view, the funds that are available for distribution ahead of 2014 should mainly be used as basic funding for the schools to channel to their various departments and to fund strategic initiatives at approximately the same level as last year. I would like to see the new basic funding being used for new faculty appointments and being distributed to departments with a low level of basic funding but strong operations.

In recent years the number of faculty appointments have failed to keep pace with other types of appointments. Now that we have a certain amount of leeway, we should create a number of entirely new posts. The focus should be mainly on new assistant professorships in broad subject areas. And by imposing a requirement on the inclusion of strong female applicants for the posts I also hope to precipitate an improvement in equal opportunities.

The funding that is earmarked for distribution to schools includes a separate item consisting of co-funding for EU projects. Co-funding has increased on the back of the sharp rise in EU funding in the last few years. The funding previously came mainly from the central contribution margin levied on salary expenses.

I intend to initiate an discussion suggesting that the co-funding of research from the contribution margin is removed in favour of all research funding coming from direct government grants. This would lead to an equivalent reduction in the contribution margin and lead to a lower central levying of overhead costs. Transparency in the system will also increase as result of fewer funds being in circulation.

At the time of writing we do not know the exact amount that is available for distribution. We are currently investigating the possibilities for freeing up resources from other initiatives and whether a certain amount of surplus budgeting is required.

On Friday I took part in the annual meeting of the Council of Principals of the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW). The Council of Principals is made up of the presidents of Sweden’s largest universities and we have an advisory role for the foundation’s activities.

KAW is one of the important financiers of research in Sweden. Since Göran Sandberg’s appointment as Executive Director of the board its strategy has changed course. KAW’s financing is today geared more towards grants for bigger projects, individual funding for researchers in two programmes (Wallenberg Academy Fellows and Wallenberg Scholars) and a number of strategic initiatives that the board initiates independently. Funding for infrastructure projects is being phased out.

Project applications are prioritised and sent in by the university presidents. In the two previous rounds of applications, KTH has had three projects approved. New applications were submitted to the foundation in February. It has been underlined that grants are intended for hypothesis-driven research and not the broad collaborative programmes of centres and institutes.

Strategic initiatives vary in nature. The council is currently discussing a mathematics programme comprising a post-doc programme to fund outgoing and visiting postdocs and a guest research programme. Institut Mittag-Leffler may also be receiving a grant within the programme framework. I strongly support this initiative and hope that the board of KAW takes an affirmative decision soon.

Another strategic initiative is a post-doc programme to Stanford, where the idea is to introduce an open call for proposals in all disciplinary research domains.

On Wednesday I attended the annual dialogue meeting at the Ministry of Education and Research. It was mainly dedicated to updating the ministry about our operations and discussing the forecasts for the next few years. One particular issue that I raised was the problem with the current admissions system for paying students and the need for a larger scholarship programme.

We also discussed the catastrophically low level of applicants to teacher training programmes in engineering and the natural sciences in Sweden. The ministry has called for proposals for improvements.

KTH’s major dependence on external research grants makes it difficult for us to offer teachers and researchers good long-term terms. This is an area where we need to improve.

In simple terms, KTH’s income can be divided into four equal-sized portions: 1. Basic higher education funding, 2. Research and innovation grants, 3. Income from research councils and other government authorities and 4. Other income from the EU, industry and other private funding sources. Some of the education and research funding can be used for the long-term funding of faculty, but not all.

There are certain environments at KTH where the existing long-term funding for faculty is simply too low. But finding a good solution in the short-term is a challenge. It is the responsibility of the schools to ensure reasonable terms in the long-term.

In many cases, the requests for new faculty appointments that are submitted to the faculty council, and which subsequently end up on my desk, are encumbered by weak long-term funding. It is sometimes also difficult to evaluate the calculations presented.

The internal requirements on securing long-term funding for new faculty appointments have been tightened in the last few years, but I believe that we nevertheless need to raise our standards even higher if we are to attract the most desirable candidates to KTH. I have therefore initiated a discussion with dean of faculty Sophia Hober to see how this can be achieved. We are working on a proposal that is to be processed by the faculty council’s research allocation committee.

The top candidates for tenure track appointments as assistant professor generally receive offers from several universities. It is vital that KTH can offer good long-term terms and an attractive starting package to be an attractive alternative in the international competition.

When it comes to international professorship recruitments, I have witnessed several cases of appointments that have been scuppered by the issue of long-term funding.

On Thursday, KTH will receive a visit from the three leading universities of technology in Netherlands: TU Delft, TU Eindhoven and University of Twente, who together make up the 3TU federation. In a full day of activities we will be holding presentations and discussing issues of joint interest.

The Dutch universities are represented by their respective executive boards, which consist of chairman, president and vice-president. The 3TU federation is led by the chairmen of the three universities. 3TU is a collaborative organisation for education, research and innovation.

There are five joint master’s programmes. There is also an open structure where students with a bachelor’s degree from one of the three universities have greater mobility in their choice of master’s programme. It will be interesting to find out how this works and the mobility it has given the students. I would like to see greater mobility in Sweden in the transition from bachelor’s to master’s programmes.

In the research arena there are five joint Centres of Competence and eight joint Centres of Excellence. As I understand it, the Centres of Competence have a slightly looser collaborative form than the Centres of Excellence. It will be interesting to find out more about it.

KTH and the three Dutch universities of technology share many similarities. The Netherlands and Sweden are relatively small countries that depend strongly on exports and an open international economy. The universities of technology are also affected. I believe that we have much to gain by collaborating and exchanging experience.

We have a number of existing collaborative projects. Like KTH, TU Eindhoven is part of the Cluster network. The three Dutch universities are also active partners in the EIT initiatives InnoEnergy and ICT Labs.

In the Times Higher Education’s latest rankings, TU Delft and TU Eindhoven are slightly ahead of KTH. We are all among the top ten ranking universities of technology in Europe.

I am happy to report that last Wednesday the Riksdag finally adopted the Research and Innovation Bill that was presented last autumn. As I have mentioned in previous weekly letters, KTH will benefit from the bill.

SciLifeLab will receive SEK 150 million already this year for a joint initiative between KTH, Karolinska institutet, Stockholm University and Uppsala University. Although funding will be channelled to KTH, the board of SciLifeLab is the executive body for the project. SciLifeLab will also receive SEK 40 million in funding for a pharmaceutical initiative in 2013.

The SciLifeLab’s future composition and powers will be defined by a government regulation. On Friday we received a draft which is being circulated for comment. The comments will be sent to the ministry on Tuesday. I am currently in dialogue with my presidential colleagues about it.

The board will probably be composed of nine people: an independent chairman; one member from KTH, KI, SU and UU; three members from other Swedish universities and one representative from industry.

As a result of the Research and Innovation Bill, the faculty funding for 2014 will be increased. For KTH it will be around SEK 35 million. In the spring, the presidents’ and management groups will discuss how these funds should best be used. We will most probably use them for special initiatives.

This week, Stockholm’s schools and universities are on a break. For my part I will be taking the family on a trip to Fjällen (the Swedish Fells). Skiing trips are the best way to spend a holiday. Out on the slopes all day, followed by lazy evenings and nice and early to bed! I thoroughly look forward to it.

The University Board will be meeting on Thursday to take decisions about the annual report, the budget proposal, the internal audit’s annual report and plan for 2013 and adjustments to the procedural rules.

I have previously commented on KTH’s annual report. While it is generally favourable, both with respect to our finances and operations, the graduation rate on our study programmes needs to be improved in the next few years.

Budget proposals are documents containing plans and forecasts for the next few years that universities are required to submit to the government. For 2013-2016 we expect that KTH will continue to grow and that result-wise we will probably break-even. In its budget proposal, KTH has also drafted a number of proposals for new initiatives. In its instructions, however, the government has made it clear that it does not wish to see any such wish lists.

The University Board establishes KTH’s procedural rules. Normally, the procedural rules are raised as a decision point once a year so that any adjustments that have been identified during the year can be made. The current adjustment proposals have also been presented at the faculty board and management group.

No major changes are being proposed. Among other things, the school deans’ administrative terms are being clarified. The rules now state that the maximum mandate period is eight years, i.e. two four-year administrative terms. Certain changes to the electoral procedure for the schools’ strategic councils have also be proposed.

The internal audit is commissioned by the University Board. In 2012 the audit focussed on the graduation rate and unutilised funding. For 2013, the internal audit will examine the handling of international students and on work environment issues.

For a while now I have been involved in Mattekommissionen (the Maths Commission), an initiative aimed at raising proficiency and interest in mathematics among students. Student proficiency in mathematics appears to be declining in Sweden compared with other countries. This is a major cause for concern. An Op-Ed was published in Friday’s Svenska Dagbladet in which we have highlighted a number of measures that require urgent attention.

The annual report for 2012, which is nearing completion, indicates that KTH continues to grow. While most of the figures indicate a healthy trend, some of the results need to be improved.

Compared with the annual report of five years ago, our income has increased by 40%, which is equivalent to an annual growth of 7%. This has paved the way for strong expansion in most of KTH’s operations. The financial result for 2012 was a profit of SEK 57 million, which is a decline compared with the last few years but was planned for. In the next few years the result will probably be close to break-even.

In the last five-year period, the direct public funding portion in our total income has fallen from 56% to 51%. The main reason, of course, is the accelerating increase in external revenues, which, while being testament to KTH’s competitiveness, also entails a number of adverse effects.

It is important that we find ways to allow KTH to start up initiatives with its own funding. I hope that our fundraising programme will help us achieve this end. The fundraising work has intensified in the last year. A lot has been achieved. It now remains to be seen whether we will meet our set goals.

I am happy to report that interest in studying at KTH continues to increase. Compared with 2007, the number of first-choice applicants to our master of engineering study programmes increased by 50%. KTH’s PhD programmes are also popular, and there is considerable competition over the advertised vacancies. I am also happy to report that the number of third-cycle students continues to increase.

While most of the news is positive, there are some exceptions. The number of master of engineering graduates is too low in proportion to the number of students that are admitted onto the programmes. Everyone at KTH needs pull together to get more students to complete their degrees.

As you the reader the can see we have changed the platform for my weekly letters. This will have advantages both for the readers and for administration of KTH’s web management.

For the reader it will be simpler to follow the weekly letters without having to enter the website. You can, for instance, use the blog’s RSS flow or blog monitoring service on the Internet. Readers can also share individual excerpts in social media such as Facebook or Twitter.  The old weekly letters are still available in the “Archives” section on the right of the page. We hope that the weekly letter will be simpler to follow and that we have made it easier for you to find your way around.

Last Thursday I attended the official employment award ceremony for Kåre Bremer, the President of  Stockholm University. Astrid Söderbergh Widding was appointed as new President on Friday. KTH has had an excellent collaborative relationship with Stockholm University under Kåre Bremer’s leadership. The collaboration has been intensified over the last few years, yielding a number of good projects such as SciLifeLab, Nordita and a shared mathematics centre, among other things.

I have had the opportunity to meet Astrid Söderbergh Widding on a number of occasions and I have the impression that our collaboration will continue in the same fruitful manner. I also hope that we can find even more contact points. Issues of common interest in the next few years include the build-up of the Albano area.

A new president was also appointed at Karolinska Institutet on 1 January, with Anders Hamsten taking over from Harriet Wallberg Henriksson. I have also met Anders a number of times. We share the same view about continuing the development of the excellent collaboration between  KTH and KI that Harriet helped to establish.

Important issues in the collaboration with KI include SciLifeLab but there are also a number of other areas where I see great potential for development on the boundary between technology and medicine.

Last week I took part in the annual presidents’ conference, which by tradition is held at Steningevik conference centre at the end of January. The main point is that the Swedish Minister of Education and Research is there to talk about topical issues. A large number of discussion items that affect current and future issues for the higher education sector are also raised.

Jan Björklund talked in general about the issues that are being discussed at the ministry. My impression is that there is a good dialogue between the minister and universities.

The minister underlined that it is the result of the study programmes that are being evaluated in the current quality assessment system and not the process. He is, however, open to the possibilities for modifications to the present system, which is something that we have also noticed during the past year. My impression is that self-assessments, for instance, have now received a greater weight in relation to the degree projects in the current assessment of the engineering study programmes, which is good news indeed.

He also raised the issue of fee reforms for discussion. The ministry is considering different ways to enhance flexibility. This includes the admission rules where Swedish universities are losing a large number of excellent students by not providing them with prompt notification regarding admission. A lot could be gained by introducing a special admissions system for fee-paying students.

They are also deliberating on increasing the flexibility regarding which fees should be charged and making life simpler for students to get a residence permit after completing their studies. I sincerely hope these changes can be made quickly.

The matter of higher education foundations was also raised. In the spring a bill will be drafted about opening the possibilities for universities and university colleges  to be assume the status of foundations. I raised this question on several occasions last year and we have been waiting for a written report to comment on.

In general respects no major changes are in the pipeline when it comes to research and education.