[Global HR Forum 2006] (8일) 마사 파이퍼/브리티시컬럼비아대(전)총장 연설 - 영문본

Creating a Global Talent Pool – Higher Education Perspectives

Global Universities: Educating Citizens for the 21st Century

Opening Session 2


Dr. Martha C. Piper



Thank you and good afternoon.



I would like to begin by thanking the organizers of the Global HRD Forum 2006 for the invitation to speak here today on the subject of Global Talent Development. I am honoured to be part of such an impressive array of speakers. Looking around the room, I see a group of people who I believe are critical to the development of global talent: leaders in the business world, academic scholars and government policy makers—all of whom are committed to making a difference in our world. So, again, it’s an honour to be here.





There was a nice phrase in a recent Economist magazine, a reference to the forces of globalization and – this is the phrase – “the death of distance.” The internet, the ease of international travel, the fleet-footedness of international capital: all these have made the world a much smaller place.



But “the death of distance” rings with much more truth when you are closeted in an office, surfing the globe on your computer screen, than it does when you are on a flight from Vancouver to Seoul. Distance, I would say, has lost much of its influence, but the report of its death – even in a source as credible as the Economist – is still premature.



Speaking of distance, last year I visited Singapore and had the privilege of meeting Lee Kwan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore and well known father of the modern Singapore of today. It was a 90 minute question and answer session that was attended by about 50 university presidents from around the world. Upon reflection, it was one of those once in a lifetime experiences. Regardless of what you think of Singapore it was very clear that we were in the presence of a global visionary, an individual who understands the importance of developing global talent in order to thrive in the increasingly competitive environment we find ourselves in today.



What I would like to share with you today is one of the interesting observations Mr. Lee made—an observation that I believe has particular relevance to today’s conference. When asked what he would advise his grandson to study in order to prepare for the competitiveness of the next several decades, Mr. Lee answered something like this: “Given the changing global context that includes the rise of India and China, the linkage of prosperity with innovation and the cultural conflict present in today’s world, I think my grandson should concentrate his studies in three areas: 1) Languages – English, Malay, Mandarin and Punjabi, to name a few; 2) Science and Technology; and 3) Multi-cultures and religious studies.”



Now what does this conversation have to do with cultivating global talent? Well, in my mind, Mr. Lee’s list of three areas of expertise succinctly describes the educational challenge for global universities in the 21st century. His list clearly recognizes the need to be technologically savvy and scientifically literate. He understands the important role universities play and must continue to play in educating individuals who can compete in an increasingly technological and scientifically sophisticated world. But—and this is a big but—Mr. Lee also clearly understands that expertise in science and technology is not enough to prepare our students for the world in which they live. By highlighting language requirements and cultural sensitivity, Mr. Lee has expanded the challenge for global universities considerably.



For example, how many universities have adequate language departments and/or requirements? How many of our universities have depth and breadth in cultural and religious studies? How many of our institutions have invested resources in the same degree in our humanities and language departments as we have in our natural sciences and engineering programs? In short, how well are we educating students to be global citizens?



It is clear that if we are to live in one world—one small, interconnected world—universities must assume their role in educating global citizens, that is, citizens who in addition to being able to compete scientifically and economically will also understand the world in which we live and ensure the survival of a civil society—a society in which all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, intellectual ability, or religious beliefs, can express themselves without fear, exercise their individual human rights and live in healthy, safe, respectful, and economically strong and trusting communities.



What then constitutes a global citizen? How does a university in the 21st century assist in educating such individuals? These are the questions I would like to explore with you this afternoon.



Global Citizens. ‘Lest we think we are embarking on something novel, I am reminded of the Greek philosopher Diogenes, who when asked where he came from, replied “I am a citizen of the world”. He meant by this that he refused to be defined simply by his local origins and group memberships; he insisted on defining himself in terms of more universal aspirations and concerns. The Stoics who followed his lead developed his image of the kosmopolites, or world citizen, arguing that each of us dwells, in effect, in two communities—the local community of our birth, and the broader community of human argument and aspiration.



It is these two communities coming together within an individual that I believe constitutes global citizenship. In other words, we need not give up our special affiliations and identities, whether national or ethnic or religious; but we do need to work to make all human beings part of our community of dialogue and concern, framing local or national politics within a broader structure of respect for all human beings. Our goal, therefore, must be to educate future global citizens who see themselves not simply as citizens of a local region but also as human beings bound to all other human beings by ties of concern and understanding.



And what if we don’t succeed in meeting this goal? What if we falter in our education task? Why should universities move boldly in structuring our curriculums and learning environments to foster global literacy and citizenship? And how universities educate global citizens?



Thomas Friedman in his best selling book The Lexus and the Olive Tree makes the compelling case for the synthesis of knowledge from a variety of perspectives . He argues that the traditional boundaries between six disciplines, politics, culture, technology, finance, national security and ecology are disappearing when it comes to understanding global issues. He suggests that you can neither understand one discipline without referring to the others, nor explain the whole without reference to them all. Friedman equates it to putting on glasses and seeing the world in 6-D or six dimensions.



To be globally literate you have to learn how to synthesize information from each of these disparate perspectives and then weave it all together to produce a picture of the world that you would never have if you looked at it from a singular point of view. In my mind it is clear: In a world where we are all so much more interconnected, the ability to read the connections—to connect the dots—is the real value provided by an education. If we don’t teach our students to see the connections, we will not teach them to see the world.



Teaching them to see the connections. This clearly means that the learning environment in the 21st century must go beyond the teaching of a narrow area or field of expertise. Clearly, the world in which we live is not divided up into neat little boxes of knowledge. Rather the contemporary world is such that the boundaries between domestic, international, political, technological, environmental and financial affairs are all collapsing.



In the 20th century, university graduates could get away with thinking that their area of concern would be a health profession in a local hospital, or a financial analyst for a national bank, or an engineer for a regional technology firm. But today the scope of practice is the planet Earth and the global integration of technology, finance, trade and information is occurring in a way that is influencing wages, interest rates, living standards, culture, job opportunities, wars, weather and health threats all over the world. Universities must continue to excel in the individual disciplines and educate students to be experts in their chosen field; but this is no longer enough. They must also expose students to the complexities of integrating knowledge across disciplines, and equip them think more broadly about their actions in terms of global issues and concerns.



Barry McBride, the previous VP Academic and Provost at UBC, recently offered a nice example of how that might work –or more specifically, on how it has not been working till now. He said that, as a microbiologist, he had spent his entire teaching career tying to get students excited about things like the bacteriology of salmonella; but in all his classes—in almost four decades of talking about salmonella—never once did he draw a connection between what was happening in the Petri dish and the little boy in Guatemala who for lack of a safe water source, was going to die from diarrhea.



That’s got to change. Anyone who has read the bestseller Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi can begin to imagine how even with the teaching of Pride and Prejudice or the novels of Henry James one can stimulate students to think globally.



All of this is to say that global universities in the 21st century must be leading our innovative capacity through leading research and discovery, linking those discoveries through commercialization of the technologies and integrating new knowledge across disciplines through innovative curriculums. A big job? Yes! But universities over the centuries have always led societal change, and the 21st century will be no different.



The Economist, again, puts forth the rationale for this kind of approach. It notes that world-class universities produce a disproportionately large share of cutting-edge ideas and research, have a major impact on our economic competitiveness and educate our future leaders.



There’s the example of Stanford, which helped to incubate Google, Yahoo!, Cisco, Sun Microsystems and many other world changing firms. There’s the University of Texas at Austin, which has helped to create a high-technology cluster that employs 100,000 people in 1,700 companies. There are the eight great research universities in the Boston area, which in the year 2000 alone injected $7.4 billion into the local economy, generating 264 new patents and granting 280 licenses to private enterprises.



It can happen there. It can happen anywhere.

But we need to do four things. First, our governments need to continue to invest in basic and fundamental research…the backbone and foundation of innovation and competitiveness. And within that effort, in addition to our support of the natural sciences, health and engineering, we need to enhance our commitment to and value of the social sciences and humanities. I am reminded of Mr. Lee’s underlining the importance of language, cultural and religious literacy—understanding the seeds of tension, cultural clash and terrorism and the importance in investing in a broader research and knowledge base in what I like to call the human sciences. We have undervalued that aspect of our R&D agenda and I believe need to recognize its central place in our competitiveness agenda in the complex, ever changing world.



Second, we need to increase funding for graduate students – both domestic and international. If global universities are to create a sufficient number of HQP, highly qualified personnel, we must invest – and invest heavily – in graduate students.



And if we are to compete in the world, we must all work to attract the smartest and the highest-achieving graduate students from around the globe—to diversify our graduate student population. Graduate students bring energy and drive. They bring a different cultural and intellectual perspective. And they bring vital connections to other parts of the world.



Some will come and stay – as so many have done in past generations in the United States. And some will return to their home countries with fond memories and excellent business contacts in the place they studied. These people are an essential investment in the future of our individual countries and in the future of the world.



A review of the history of the development of the Silicon Valley reflects the wisdom of such a strategy. International graduate students recruited to Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech and UCLA have contributed significantly to the development of California and the U.S.



Third, we need to educate global citizens—individuals who have some comprehension of their roles, rights and responsibilities as citizens of the world. If we are to succeed in providing the type of education Lee Kuan Yew desires for his grandson, we must embed the messages of citizenship and global responsibility in every course, in every specialty.



And finally, we must as global universities connect with other like-minded global universities. A country like Canada is not going to stay ahead—it’s not even going to keep up—unless we have a permanent presence among the students, scientists and researchers at places like the Indian Institutes of Technology, the top universities in China, the Biopolis in Singapore, and the international science hubs in places like California, Chile and Europe. We need to establish technology transfer offices in other countries; we need to develop student exchange programs throughout the world; we need to build research infrastructure in international universities where Canadian students and scholars work side-by-side with their global counterparts.





Let me leave you with a picture—even though I use words to describe it. It is a picture of an individual who was portrayed in the recent issue of BusinessWeek that focused on India and China and I quote:



“Rajendra Kumar Nayak considers himself a lucky guy. Sipping his favorite $.60 milkshake at a trendy coffee shop in Manipal, India, he’s rejoicing about the job he’ll start soon, following his recent graduation from the Manipal Institute of Technology (MIT). Nayak will work as an industrial engineer at Wipro Fluid Power in Bangalore for $390 a month—a lucrative salary by Indian standards. But Nayak, 22, isn’t simply lucky. He’s gutsy and smart. The son of a steelworker, he gambled in 2001 by taking out a $7,000 loan and heading to Manipal. Four years later he’s graduating first in his class. “MIT was expensive, but worth it,” he says.



“Nayak is an example of the breed of ambitious young engineers who will power the next phase of India’s tech and industrial boom. And Manipal Institute of Technology is one of the leading Indian colleges educating this next generation.”



Ambitious young people—leading global universities. Just look around the world and understand the competition we all face. The world is changing—and we as educational leaders must ensure that our institutions lead this change rather than responding to it. I say this as a retired university president, on behalf of my faculty and students. But even more, I say it on behalf of our children who will be facing an unimaginable world in 25 years. They deserve every advantage that we can secure in the meantime.



Thank you.