Author
Switzerland and the Netherlands are often cited as role models when various issues in the university sector are discussed, such as research performance, institutional autonomy, quality systems, funding or responsible internationalization.
I have had the opportunity to visit technical universities in both countries on a couple of occasions this spring and last year.
It is always difficult to compare the situation in different countries. The systems and conditions for universities differ so much that it is not possible to compare figures directly. But, despite this, we can still reflect on some of the differences between us.
In Switzerland, the state owns the buildings and the universities use them without paying rent, but on the other hand they have to pay for maintenance, renovation and new construction. Unlike the pretend market with huge profits for property owners that has been created for the provision of premises for Swedish universities, the system in Switzerland is based on a model where the universities are responsible for the actual costs of the properties.
In Sweden, universities are severely plagued by the current model where we not only pay the costs of property management, but are also forced to contribute to surplus profits and share dividends that go back to the state.
In the Netherlands, there is a well-developed cooperation between universities on the one hand, and between universities and the government on the other, which enables joint work on problem solving and development, for example in the work on responsible internationalisation or through the development of quality systems for higher education. We have good collaboration between universities in Sweden as well, but not really in a way that allows us to jointly shape solutions for the future with politics.
Switzerland and the Netherlands still have the system whereby a degree obtained at an earlier stage in the education system gives access to higher education. This is similar to the system of matriculation examinations that we had in Sweden until the late 1960s. Universities thus have no control over the number of students coming to the various programmes, but must accept all those who come – resulting in a high drop-out rate in the first year.
In Sweden, our system provides great opportunities to dimension and shape the supply strategically and in the long term within the framework of a relatively large autonomy for the universities. In comparison with Switzerland and the Netherlands, this autonomy is a major advantage.
However, what remains in the memory after the visits is the funding model. The majority of research is funded by basic funding and a smaller proportion by competitive grants – unlike the situation in Sweden – which means that academic staff have a more secure position.
Universities also receive one single funding for research and education, as opposed to the rather artificial division into two separate grants that we have. In addition, the funding levels are much more generous than in Sweden.
What is most important, however, is that we have developing co-operation and exchanges with our friends in both Switzerland and the Netherlands. Together, we can help solve the problems of the future through both research and education. After all, even if the systems are different, we find many opportunities for co-operation through jointly formulated research questions.
Author
The Minister for Higher Education made a statement on 9 April that he would like to see fewer independent courses and especially fewer distance learning courses. Instead, he wants to increase programme courses for engineers and nurses, among others.
The debate article attracted a lot of criticism and the Minister’s Saturday radio interview probably didn’t help . Everyone seems to be wondering how this is supposed to happen. Should the government go in and control the supply at each university in detail and actively point out which parts of the supply should be removed? If so, this would be an unprecedented micromanagement and a level of control that would be almost impossible to implement.
On the other hand, the government can do pretty much what it wants. If it wants to micromanage, it can do so; if it wants to express goals for each higher education institution, it can do so; if it wants to move financial resources on a flat-rate basis from one higher education institution with a high proportion of courses to another higher education institution with a higher proportion of programmes, it can do so and hope that the outcome will be a lower proportion of courses and a higher proportion of programmes.
Within the framework of a major change programme, Future Education, KTH has formulated overall principles to guide our change work and has also launched a number of development projects to realise these. We have also recently decided on the direction of the review of our programme offering, which will lead to a prioritisation of urgent projects for programme development during the year.
It is important that we can work with all tools when doing this. And as some of my colleagues write in a opinion piece that many of our societal challenges require an interdisciplinary approach https://www.dn.se/kultur/kth-professorer-stall-inte-olika-kunskapsomraden-mot-varandra/ (In Swedish).
We need to define the technical subject knowledge to be conveyed and add sustainability and gender equality perspectives. Ethical and policy issues also need to be included when equipping future engineers to solve all the intractable problems that await them in their professional lives.
We are basically a programme-intensive university, but in recent years we have developed an increasing range of independent courses as part of our efforts to develop our contribution to lifelong learning. It is essential that we are free to assess and shape our provision in terms of programmes, at different levels, and courses without being constrained by governmental micromanagement in this regard.
It must be the responsibility of each university to put together an offer that meets the demand of the students and the requirements of the labour market, and then we need to be able to use both programmes and courses.
My hope is that we can continue to be given this responsibility and that we can also have a dialogue with our clients about how we can best contribute to what Sweden needs in the future from a higher education institution like ours.
Author
Who is the typical KTH student? I get that question sometimes and the answer becomes more and more obvious: It’s different.
About a month ago, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting where those who work with the reception of students starting at KTH this autumn participated in workshops and lectures under the heading “Leadership, sustainability and inclusive reception”.
I am convinced that KTH, through Tekniska Högskolans Studentkår (THS) and the collaboration with, among others, KTH’s Education Office, has a very good and relevant reception to make everyone feel included and welcome. The basic idea is that no matter who you are, where you come from or what background you have, you are welcome at KTH.
The horror stories of the old days about hazing and other initiation rites to higher education thankfully feel very distant. In those days, the purpose of hazing was to mould and “purify” the new students so that they became “real” students. They had to fit into the system.
Today, it’s just the opposite, where differences are celebrated. This also goes hand in hand with the view and importance of broader recruitment. I hope that the new students feel welcome on campus and that they get a good introduction to their studies and student life.
The social imbalance in recruitment to higher education is still significant and Sweden is missing out on a number of talents. Attracting new groups of students to study remains a constant priority. It is not only a question of justice for the individual, but also a question of quality, social benefit and participation in the development of society.
For KTH, broader recruitment is crucial as the engineering profession is still male dominated. We risk losing both talent and important perspectives if we fail to be relevant and interesting to broader groups in society. Societal challenges require the participation of the entire society to be solved, and universities are part of engaging everyone in this important work for the future.
Author
Translating new, exciting ideas that can change society into practical solutions in everyday life is something KTH works on a broad front- not least with the help of KTH Innovation.
A particularly interesting area for innovation is what is usually called “deep tech”. These are pioneering technology areas that require large investments in research and development to move from idea to application and commercialisation. New deep tech companies are therefore research-based and knowledge-intensive, with a business model that requires both high investment and risk-taking.
Unlike ordinary start-up companies that have a clear product or solution, deep tech covers multifaceted issues, often some of our societal challenges with research that can take a long time and have a long path to the market. It can involve research in AI, energy, waste management, biotech, materials, robotics and life sciences, to name some of them.
In most of these areas, KTH has important and relevant research to contribute with. We want and should be a research actor when it comes to society’s future issues, which are very much in areas that are crucial for the future.However, deep tech requires patience, perseverance and a research policy that supports this in order to benefit society.
When it comes to the development of deep tech, a key challenge is to find solutions within the research and innovation policy system so that research advances can be scaled up via pilot and test facilities or demonstrators to eventually generate commercial solutions. Often these are steps that traditional research funding cannot handle, but it may also be too early in the process for traditional venture capital to be available. Therefore, large strategic investments are needed that probably need to be a mix of public and private, national and international capital.
Identifying how different deep tech areas can be managed and the national conditions have been analysed by Vinnova. KTH is active and prominent in several of the eight deep tech platforms identified and analysed and our responsibility in the larger research and innovation policy system is to continue to build research environments with groundbreaking research in an ecosystem where innovation and applications go hand in hand.
KTH does not operate in a vacuum; collaboration across both disciplines and national borders is a matter of course. Sometimes Sweden’s playing field can seem a little too small and we as a university should seek international collaborations to be at the forefront of breakthrough areas – not least in Europe.
Now that the Government is dealing with the comments on the research funding inquiry, Fofin, and preparing a new research and innovation policy bill, it is hoped that these major strategic investments for Sweden and the future will also find their way into the budget tables!
Author
What can Swedish higher education institutions contribute in the event of a crisis or war? This was a question I reflected on during a lecture at the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, IVA, in early February.
International recruitment is one of our tasks where we need to include security checks of various kinds, export controls are carried out regularly, and individual recruitments must also be assessed based on potential security risks. This is a challenging job in an organisation where the researcher’s drive and the teacher’s commitment to their own activities need to be combined with a strong judgement of when and how risks arise.
This has meant that we now also know where in the university we have security-sensitive information in one form or another. This may be through collaboration with the defence industry or in partnerships that mean that information about Swedish installations is made available, and it may also involve research or educational environments where access to such knowledge can be expected. We have therefore also carried out more in-depth security protection analyses than before, which also makes us better prepared for more serious crises.
Bu t otherwise, the primary role of higher education institutions may not be to be activated in a crisis or war, but rather to contribute to building capacity, knowledge, skills and abilities that can make society more robust and resilient in future crises or war situations.
This is how research and higher education in general contribute to society – a factory of the future, preparing for future solutions and needs. Researchers and teachers at universities must look ahead, around the corner, beyond the current knowledge frontier, in order to contribute to this building of the future. It is building societal resilience by creating skills and knowledge for use in both civil and public organisations. As an example of this, we at KTH inaugurated Cybercampus Sweden on 7 February.
The pandemic and SciLifeLab is another example that was activated in two ways, partly for sampling and analysis, and partly to build long-term pandemic preparedness.
Virtually all our areas of knowledge at KTH have a relevance for building the secure society of the future and for Sweden to be better equipped when war or crisis comes. Of course, this is not only about knowledge for armed conflicts, but also about robust social systems, secure installations, life sciences, aeronautical engineering, clean water, food supply and secure energy supply.
