By HARRY DE BOER, BEN JONGBLOED, PAUL BENNEWORTH, DON WESTERHEIJDEN, JON FILE, CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE (NL). Engaging in the Modernisation Agenda for European Higher Education, MODERN Conference, Brussels, 30 January 2012.
The MODERN project
The new communication from the European Commission “Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems” stresses the vital role of European higher education in developing human capital and driving research and innovation in the knowledge economy. The Commission emphasises once again the need to enhance the performance and international attractiveness of Europe’s higher education institutions. European higher education institutions need to modernise their governance and prepare their leaders to operate in increasingly complex sets of interactions at the institutional, regional, national and European level. European policies call for universities to play a strong role to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda and in making Europe a strong knowledge-based economy. Although the need to prepare university leaders, for increasingly complex positions is so obvious, the supply of management support to higher education institutions, their leaders and managers is highly fragmented in Europe. DownloadEngaging in the Modernisation Agenda for European Higher Education, MODERN Conference, Brussels, 30 January 2012.
Introduction
In September 2011 the European Commission issued a communication (EC, 2011a) entitled “Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems”. The point of departure of this communication is that “...education, and in particular higher education and its links with research and innovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal advancement, and in providing the highly skilled human capital and the articulate citizens that Europe needs to create jobs, economic growth and prosperity. Higher education institutions are thus crucial partners in delivering the European Union’s strategy to drive forward and maintain growth.” (2011a; 2)
This new communication on the modernisation of European higher education echoes and builds upon themes developed in a series of earlier Commission communications and Council of the European Union resolutions stressing education, research and innovation as pillars of the Lisbon Strategy:
• Investing efficiently in education and training: An imperative for Europe (2003a);
• The role of universities in a Europe of knowledge (2003b);
• Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: enabling European universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy (2005b);
• Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, Research, and Innovation (2006);
• Modernising universities for Europe’s competitiveness in a global economy (2007)
The Commission’s latest communication stresses that “The main responsibility for delivering reforms in higher education rests with Member States and education institutions themselves. However, the Bologna Process, the EU Agenda for the modernisation of universities and the creation of the European Research Area show that the challenges and policy responses transcend national borders. In order to maximise the contribution of Europe’s higher education systems to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas: to increase the quantity of higher education graduates at all levels; to enhance the quality and relevance of human capital development in higher education; to create effective governance and funding mechanisms in support of excellence; and to strengthen the knowledge triangle between education, research and business. Moreover, the international mobility of students, researchers and staff, as well as the growing internationalisation of higher education, have a strong impact on quality and affect each of these key areas.” (2011a;3)
The MODERN project, the European Platform Higher Education Modernisation, aims to create an open platform as a key instrument for innovation, state-of-the-art knowledge, dissemination of good practice and joint action on university leadership, governance and management for the professionalisation of the sector. MODERN aims to contribute to raising awareness in European higher education institutions on the strong need to invest in people, to support potential leaders, and to encourage management training at all levels (junior and senior, academic and administrative staff) to ensure their competitiveness to respond to external challenges – such as those posed by the Modernisation Agenda itself. (For further information see: www.highereducationmanagement.eu)
This report is the last in a series of six reports to be published by the MODERN project on key issues related to current priorities in higher education management: governance, regional innovation, quality assurance and internationalisation, funding, and knowledge transfer. These five thematic reports, all written by staff members of the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) of the University of Twente, the Netherlands (and all available on the MODERN web-site) are:
• Higher Education Governance Reforms across Europe: Harry de Boer and Jon File (2009)
• Funding Higher Education: A view across Europe: Ben Jongbloed (2010)
• Internationalisation and its quality assurance: Don Westerheijden (2010)
• University Engagement and Regional Innovation: Paul Benneworth (2010)
• Towards a Strategic Management Agenda for University Knowledge Exchange: Paul Benneworth (2011)
In selecting these five themes the MODERN steering committee focused on key policy areas identified in the Modernisation Agenda of 2007. The extracts from the September 2011 communication quoted above demonstrate that these themes remain highly relevant today. Our reports cover governance reform, funding reform, internationalisation and quality, and two central aspects of the knowledge triangle: knowledge exchange and regional innovation. So, while by no means providing an exhaustive coverage of all of the areas of the current modernisation agenda, our reports focus on many of its key components.
All five reports were written with a particular purpose in mind: as background resource materials for thematic MODERN conferences which would bring together university leaders and managers as well as providers and potential providers of higher education leadership and management development workshops and programmes to discuss the challenges that trends, policies and developments around the theme in question might create for university leaders and management. The outcomes of such discussions would form a valuable input into the development of new or improved management development activities.
This sixth and final report was envisaged to be an extended executive summary of the first five reports to provide an easily accessible and relatively concise overview of trends and developments across the five selected thematic areas. The publication of the September communication has however also provided an opportunity to explore the relevance of our analyses to the latest Modernisation Agenda. Our report will once again serve as background resource material for a (final) MODERN conference: “Engaging in the Modernisation Agenda for European Higher Education” to be held in Brussels on 30 January 2012.
The structure of this report is therefore straightforward: Part One is an attempt on our part to start a process of engagement with, and conference discussion about, the new modernisation agenda primarily from a MODERN perspective: from the angle of the five MODERN thematic areas and grounded in an interest in effective university leadership and management. Part Two contains the extended executive summaries of the five MODERN thematic reports (some needed to be more extended than others)......
Principles for effective regional innovation
Regional innovation is one way in which universities can demonstrate their fulfilment of the societal compact. But to understand how regional engagement and innovation can contribute to modernising Europe’s universities the following issues and challenges emerge:
1. How to balance regional innovation with the universities’ core missions, particularly when there are such strong pressures for universities to focus on a particular mission (‘profiling’). Is regional engagement a task for a sub-set of HEIs or potentially appropriate for all HEIs?
2. There is a strategic management challenge for universities in the sense of optimising the ‘base load’ of regional innovation activity on the one hand and, on the other, thinking strategically about the opportunities which the regions offer for on-going institutional development.
3. How to capitalise on existing activities and partners and to improve based on what is already done with regional partners?
In terms of the first challenge, the framing of regional engagement and innovation as part of the third mission is not very helpful. The notion of a ‘third mission’ suggests something peripheral to universities’ core activities, hinting at an industrial liaison office or an engagement and placements centre. However, effective regional innovation involves exploiting emerging opportunities for societal engagement and networking to improve the salience, relevance and quality of the core tasks undertaken by universities. What this review makes clear is that there are no practical or conceptual reasons why excellent research cannot also be societally useful. In terms of the second challenge, the strategic management of regional innovation activities by universities, there are two types of activities to assess. First, the engagement activities already underway within universities.
Here the issue is how to optimise these activities to maximise the benefits they bring to the university consummate with the efforts and risks involved. Second, undertaking new, flagship, developmental regional innovation activities. These will bring the management challenge of attempting to change the way that things are done and to handle the relationships between regional actors. The latter type of activity implies a great deal more risk and uncertainty. The complex dynamics of the relationships require careful management and risk sharing if both universities and regions are to obtain the greatest benefit from their collaborations.
The final challenge relates to universities managing their regional engagement activities to maximise the benefits and opportunities, and minimise costs and risk. This involves writing a strategy, publishing policies and guidelines (covering things like intellectual property, building hire, staff and student volunteering, and participation in public life), allocating resources to encourage, stimulate and reward engagement, establishing performance indicators and targets, then monitoring progress towards the strategic goals. This will need to be discussed with the internal and regional stakeholders of the university to ensure that the potential benefits of regional engagement are legitimate.
Once these challenges have been addressed and digested, European HEIs will be better equipped to reinvent themselves as institutions central to securing long-term economic prosperity, social cohesion and environmental sustainability for Europe as a whole. DownloadEngaging in the Modernisation Agenda for European Higher Education, MODERN Conference, Brussels, 30 January 2012.

'Invest in Australia’s Future, Invest in Our Universities' is a long term campaign started to call on the Federal Government to increase public investment in our universities by 10% immediately, and to commit towards matching the OECD average of investment in higher education to 1% of Gross Domestic Product in the medium term.
Universities are facing a crisis. Decades of underfunding have left them with declining infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms, overworked staff, higher levels of casualisation, and an unhealthy dependence on international fee income to fund all aspects of their work.
Universities help to develop our young people, our workforce, our communities and our aspirations. They do essential practical and theoretical research and they help build lives and skills that make a valuable contribution to our communities.
With one of the world’s most prosperous economies, there is no excuse not to invest more in our universities and Australia’s future.
About the Campaign
The Invest in Australia’s Future campaign is arguing for an initial 10% increase in public funding per government supported student and a measured increase of public investment in universities to bring it to an equivalent of 1% of Gross Domestic Product. This would put Australia on an even footing with the university systems of other industrialised economies, and would provide the best chance for Australia to generate a more secure economic future beyond the mining boom.
These papers provide an overview of the reasons why this increase in investment is necessary and must largely come from public sources.
Australian universities are finding it increasing difficult to maintain the quality of the educational experience that they are able to offer students, as well the quality of research and community service. NTEU argues that there are signs of a sector rapidly approaching breaking point.
Further Information
Overview.
NTEU supports an initial 10% increase in public funding per government-supported university student and a measured increase of public investment in universities to an equivalent of 1% Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This would put Australia on an even footing with the university systems of other industrialised economies. It would also provide the best opportunity to generate a more secure economic future beyond the mining boom.
This briefing paper provides an overview of the reasons why this increase in investment is necessary. It also outlines why this investment must largely come from public sources.
The evidence presented in the paper shows that sustained and substantial cuts in real government base funding per student, from the mid 1990s until recently, have been associated with a rise in Student Staff Ratios (SSR). SSR at universities have increased from about 13 students for each class in 1990 to over 22 students in 2011.  This means that there are twice as many students per staff member and that Australian universities now have amongst the highest university SSR in the industrialised world. Recent surveys of students indicate concerns with the quality of facilities and lack of access to staff, especially casual staff who are not simply not around when students wish to consult with them.
Australian universities are finding it increasing difficult to maintain the quality of the educational experience that they are able to offer students, as well the quality of research and community service.
Economy.
Australia’s Future Skills and Educational Needs
The most recent and comprehensive analysis of Australia’s future workforce needs was undertaken by Skills Australia. In addition to identifying a need to lift Australia’s relatively low workforce participation rate and improve adult literacy and numeracy, Australian Workforce Futures: A National Workforce Development Strategy, also concludes that Australia needs to increase the productivity of its workforce. The report concludes that:
We need a workforce in which more people have skills, but also multiple and higher level skills and qualifications.
According to the highest (Open Doors) growth scenario of economic modelling undertaken by Access Economics, the proportion of the workforce requiring qualifications (at Certificate III level or above) will increase from 52% in 2007 to 62% in 2015 and almost 70% by 2025.
When these projections are broken down by level of qualification for the periods 2010 to 2025, as shown in Figure 1, several interesting trends are apparent.
Firstly, the demand for workers without any post-school qualifications is expected to fall on average by 0.6% per annum over the next 15 years. Secondly, the projected increase of demand for qualifications predominantly offered by universities (Bachelor degree and above) is estimated to be considerably higher at 4% per annum, compared to qualifications predominantly offered by the VET / TAFE sector at 2.9% per annum. Growth in demand rises as the qualification level increases, indicating that the Australian economy not only needs more qualified persons but people with higherlevel qualifications as well.
Opportunity.
Education provides enormous social benefits through better health, employment, housing, justice and community engagement. While most Australians understand that there is a direct link between education and productivity, it is more than just an investment in human capital and meeting the needs of an ever changing labour market. As such, if we are to secure our economic future and support our social development, there must be greater investment in physical, social and human infrastructure, a critical component of which is through our universities.
People.
Who should pay for university?
There is no doubt that students gain a personal benefit over their lifetime from their education. However, their access to that education can be limited or restricted by the initial perception and/or reality of the costs. In addition to Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) charges, cost of living expenses are high for many.
Australia’s universities are fast approaching breaking point and are in urgent need of a substantial increase in funding. Free market economists and conservative social commentators argue that if universities need additional funding then university students or graduates should pay more. NTEU believes that there are compelling economic, social and equity reasons as to why any increases in investment in Australia’s public universities should come from government. They should not be imposed on students in the form of higher fees or HECS charges.
Regions & Communities.
Social and Community Benefits
As a consequence of their research and teaching activities, regional universities are important drivers of their region’s economic and social development. A recent study by Charles Sturt University estimated the total economic impact of the University to the communities where it was located to be almost $1billion. This is largely due to the University’s status as a major regional employer and the economic activity generated by students living in the region. The University also provides a number of important social and community services in areas of identified need. These include dental and oral health clinics, the Functional Rehabilitation Clinic, the Allied Health Clinic, a veterinary clinic, the Kajulu Advertising Agency and 2MCE Community Radio.
Regional universities typically place a high priority on regionally focused and collaborative research, and provide local businesses, government and community groups with access to professional, technical and consulting services. Knowledge exchange also occurs through mechanisms such as business incubators, science and technology parks, staff and student secondments and placements, and exchanges between the university and business or community groups. Through their learning and teaching programs, regional universities are able to contribute to local economic and social development by tailoring courses to meet community needs and aspirations.
International.
Higher Education and Export Earnings
The education sector is Australia’s thirdlargest export industry, generating around $19.1billion in export revenues in 2009-10. [2] Universities account for more than half of this income at around $10billion. The income received from this effort is used to subsidise domestic teaching and research, however, a range of issues have impacted on projections for future international income.
While improvements have been made to visa arrangements, the relative strength of the Australian dollar and increasing competition from other countries will mean that there is no longer the ability to rely upon this income to prop up the sector. Worse than this, as budgetary pressures squeeze institutional behavior, the need to cut corners will threaten the reputation of our universities, and thereby further damage our ability to attract this income.
If we are to remain internationally competitive, it is important that public funding levels at least match the average contribution of other OECD countries.
It is vital that increased levels of public investment translate to improved quality of education for students and better job security for researchers, academics and support staff. Lifting the level of public funding should also be tied to improved student-staff ratios and a reduction in the reliance on casual and short term teaching and research employment in universities. In this way, NTEU believes that the international standing of our universities can not only be assured, but enhanced.

By Carmel Shute (NTEU National Office). The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) is holding a joint protest on Monday at 4.30pm with the La Trobe University Student Union to put ressure on the University Council to reduce staff cuts to the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. A representative will present a petition from faculty staff to the La Trobe University Council.
A document issued by La Trobe University today outlined cuts of up to 37 equivalent full-time positions plus a further four to go by 2015.
NTEU La Trobe Branch President, Virginia Mansel Lees, said that the faculty was being held to ransom by a partly manufactured budget crisis.
“Currently, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences contributes 54 cents in the dollar to central administration, which is more than other comparable faculties at other universities. A reduction of 3 cents (or 3%) would go a long way toward saving jobs. The University Council is in a position to alter the budget parameters which it has set, as it has done for another area of the University,” she said.
“Staff members are distressed by the high level of the proposed cuts and believe that it threatens the viability of the faculty. The effect on regional campuses will be acute with courses in Politics, and Religion and Spirituality, to be abolished at the Bendigo campus.
“The proposal will radically curtail the options for students on smaller regional campuses, including for higher degree studies.”
Ms Mansel Lees said that while Gender, Sexuality and Diversity Studies, and Art History will be maintained, they will be merged into other departments so the future of the current teaching staff remains uncertain.
Dr Jack Reynolds, NTEU La Trobe Branch secretary, condemned the high level of the cuts.
“The revised proposal is marginally better than what was initially proposed, but is far short of anything with which we could be satisfied. The faculty has around a $4 million surplus and it seems clear that this restructure is designed to free up funds in order to cross-subsidise research elsewhere in the university,” he said.
“The most important improvement has been the decision to retain Indonesian studies which will experience no job losses. Undergraduate Linguistics will be retained, though as a minor area of studies, with one less position.”
 Staff members at today’s forum expressed a lack of confidence that their views have been properly taken into consideration.
“The NTEU continues to have serious concerns about continued inaccuracies, including how subjects currently on the books are counted,” Dr Reynolds said.
For further information and comment:
Virginia Mansel Lees: President, NTEU La Trobe University Branch: 0438 282 146.
Dr Jack Reynolds: Secretary, NTEU La Trobe University Branch (03) 9479 3605.

By Philip G. Altbach. The OECD reports that four out of ten university graduates in the world will come from China or India by 2020—and a major part of global enrolment is taking place in these two countries. This trend is an inevitable and entirely natural result of the global expansion of higher education—massification, population trends, and the growth of the economies of both countries.
Trends elsewhere also contribute to this new reality. The slowing of population growth in most OECD countries and the actual significant decline in the number of university-age people in such countries as Japan and Russia as well as more modest declines in some others contribute to changes in the percentages of graduates globally. The failure of a few countries, such as the United States, to translate increases in access to higher education to degree completion is another contributor. Additionally, the economic slowdowns in North America and Europe will no doubt negatively affect degree completion rates as students drop out for financial reasons, postsecondary institutions raise tuition to levels that will be unmanageable for many students, and academic offerings are cut back. These trends are already evident in the United States, with California leading the way in the decline of public higher education.
A key element in this discussion is quality. An inevitable result of massification is the overall decline in the quality of many academic systems—teaching staff are likely to have lower qualifications, and students are admitted with sub-par academic preparation. This inevitably means that many graduates will lack appropriate skills. This problem has already received considerable attention in both China and India. For example, the large Indian infotech companies find that a large majority of engineering graduates do not have the knowledge needed to work in industry and are obliged to retrain them.
Since China and India have participation rates well under OCED averages—just 11 percent for India and a bit more than 20 percent for China—it is inevitable that their share of global degrees will increase in the coming period as the percentage of the age cohort enrolling increases and catches up with more developed economies.  But we need to examine the implications of this trend and not jump to conclusions.
Another trend that may not affect the total number of degrees obtained in any specific country but has consequences for the economy and labor market is the degree program that students choose to study. In many countries, engineering and some STEM fields are losing popularity and fields such as communications, business, and languages are gaining favor. In North America and much of Europe including Russia engineering enrolments are trending down.
Thus, while the new OECD survey provides useful information and has considerations for policy, the important lessons may not be quite what most commentators are focusing on.

Monday is the deadline for briefs backing the University of Texas at Austin in its Supreme Court defense of the consideration of race in admissions. On Thursday, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill filed a brief, and included a new research study arguing for the educational value of diversity. The researchers, who looked at law school students, found that racial differences "contribute to learning because differences foster richer interactions and positive educational outcomes that benefit students, institutions and society," according to a summary by the university. "In addition, when a law school’s racial diversity was significant and group interaction was high, graduating law students perceived their law school as more open and respectful of diverse ideas."
Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a group that opposes the consideration of race in admissions, questioned the study. In an e-mail message, he said: "The issues chosen to show how racial diversity correlates with perspective diversity are deliberately narrow (Anything about property? How about tax? ....), and of course law itself is a discipline in which such correlation is more likely than most others (Is there a Latina perspective in chemistry? Mathematics? Economics? Engineering? Russian? Etc.) Even if there are some educational benefits to having racial diversity in a class on "Race and the Law," that would not justify racial preferences in undergraduate admissions to the University of Texas."

The next European Education and Training Forum will take place on 18-19 October in Brussels. The aim of the Forum, entitled “Investing in skills for growth and jobs”, is to mobilise stakeholders and policy makers to modernise education and training systems through national and EU policies and instruments in order to enhance growth and jobs. This year’s Forum will have a double focus on:
1) Education and training aspects of Europe 2020 and
2) the future Erasmus for All programme.
Further information and invitations will come in early September. See previous editions of the Forum.

Hosted by the Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building Construction and City Development (EiABC), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 12-13 July 2012.
The International Association of Universities (IAU) and the Association of Catalan Public Universities (ACUP) were pleased to co-organize the international seminar on doctoral education and research training in Africa.
Bringing together participants from 19 higher education institutions, representing 14 countries, and 8 different higher education associations and organizations, the Seminar allowed for a discussion of the current state of doctoral education in Africa and was also the opportunity for participants to present various success stories. The participants also set out a series of recommendations and steps for future action to improve doctoral education.

• The seminar programme and presentations can be accessed here.

• The list of institutions and countries represented is available here.

• For pictures from the seminar, please click here.

The Seminar Report and the Addis Conclusions and Declaration are being drafted and will be made available in October.
IAU and ACUP are also delighted to announce the creation of an Interactive Web based Portal on Doctoral Education in and for Africa. Developed by IAU and ACUP, in cooperation with the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), this portal on doctoral education and training is to encourage the exchange of information and ideas related to doctoral programs and their overall management. The portal will be launched in October.
Contact:
Hilligje van’t Land, Director, Membership and Programme Development (h.vantland@iau-aiu.net)
Nadja Gmelch, Project Manager (nadja@acup.cat).

How do different higher education institutions approach staff time allocation? This is the subject of a report published today, ‘Review of time allocation methods’, that will inform the costing of activities in higher education.
In the past, allocation of staff time in higher education institutions was often considered to be at odds with the important need for academic freedom. However, the study found that time allocation processes have evolved, and are becoming accepted as the norm across a large number of institutions in the sector.
The importance of an institution’s ability to demonstrate accountability for the funding it receives from various sources has grown. At a time when student expectations and resource challenges are increasing, institutions need processes to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of work.
Although time allocation processes can be seen by staff as onerous, the study found that for academic staff the average burden of recording time spent on activities  is approximately two hours per year.
Effective time allocation is a requirement to access funding from Higher Education Funding Councils, the Research Councils and the European Commission. The data also inform the Government’s funding policy and provide valuable information for consideration in government Spending Reviews.
Other findings in the report include:

• Although there are many important issues to consider in designing a time allocation process, the communications supporting its implementation, operation and relevance are the factors with the greatest influence on its success.
• It can be the case that academic staff do not appreciate the direct link made between the need for the time allocation process and the receipt of funding.
• The average time taken by academic staff to comply with time allocation requirements was a little over two hours per year. This represents approximately 0.1 per cent of total academic staff costs.
• A small number of opportunities are identified for reducing the apparent burden of time allocation processes, which could also further enhance the reliability of the information.
• The current time allocation methods that are used in the full economic costing process are largely appropriate and in line with the recommendations from various studies in this area.

The report makes 12 recommendations. A number relate to enhancing the approach to time allocation, recognising that there is no one answer, and a range of institutional requirements. Other recommendations are for better communications, so that those being asked to provide the data have a clearer understanding of its purpose. There are also recommendations around further improving management information.
Professor Stuart Palmer, former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Warwick, and Chair, TRAC Development Group, commented that:

‘There has been considerable debate in the HE community about time allocation. This report suggests that communications could be improved, so providers of time data understand why they are being asked to provide it. In addition institutions’ management information needs are increasing in this area, and I hope that the findings and recommendations in the report can help further enhance the sector’s practices.’

The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) will today (26 June) announce plans to launch a new National Centre for Universities and Business. The centre will focus on strengthening the strategic partnership between universities and business with a view to driving economic growth and recovery. HEFCE will initially fund the centre, with support from other national funding bodies.
The establishment of such a centre was a key recommendation in Sir Tim Wilson’s review of business-university collaboration, published in February 2012. Today’s announcement coincides with the Government’s response to the Review in which ministers are expected to support the launch of such a centre.
The development of the National Centre reflects the recognition by university and business leaders that they need to do more together to address the challenges to the UK of immediate turbulence in the global economy and of longer-term competitiveness.
A high-level steering group, chaired by Sir Richard Lambert (the former Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and author of the influential 2003 review of links between higher education (HE) and business) and Professor Anton Muscatelli (the Principal of the University of Glasgow), will oversee development of a full business plan for the centre, with a view to getting a range of funders and sponsors on board to launch the centre fully in the Autumn.
The centre will publish an annual ‘State of the relationship report’ which is intended to become the premier influence on policy development in the area of HE-business links. It will also conduct enquiries into major matters of HE and business interest. This will include examining the impact of the new student funding and fees regime on graduate recruitment and the longer-term business workforce. The Centre will be on hand to offer services to HE and business, such as good practice developments and support in establishing international links.
Sir Richard Lambert, former Director-General, CBI said:
'The challenge to the UK of the rise of developing countries as knowledge economies is serious. In my 2003 review, I endorsed the vital importance of university-business partnerships. However, this is now combined with the more immediate need to get the UK into growth and recovery, and to make it competitive and resilient. Through the new centre, I want to commit businesses and universities to meeting these challenges – together – and to making Great Britain a great place for innovation.'
Dr David Docherty, Chief Executive, CIHE, said:
'The CIHE is committed to develop the relationships between universities and business. That is why we leapt at the opportunity presented to us by the Wilson Review. The new National Centre will become a key force in strengthening business-university co-operation and ultimately driving the economic recovery.'
David Sweeney, Director for Research, Innovation and Skills, HEFCE, said:
'HEFCE is very pleased to fund the initial development of the National Centre for Universities and Business, and we look forward to working with other funders to support the full venture.  This forms part of our long-term commitment to HE-business links, reflected particularly in the support we give for knowledge exchange through the Higher Education Innovation Fund. We look forward to new Centre providing further compelling evidence of why universities matter for the economic future of this country - and why they are a good investment towards growth, for the Government, as well as for business support.'
Professor Anton Muscatelli, Principal, University of Glasgow, said:
'The Lambert Review was a great spur to business-university partnerships and real progress has been made. However, we need to commit now to deepen that partnership and seize opportunities ahead. I am very pleased that leaders from universities and from business have agreed to put their time into getting this centre launched, as recommended by the Wilson Review. I look forward to working with partners, including all the various relevant funding bodies, universities and business, to establish this centre.' Notes