Universities and Civilizations. Franck Leprevost

the purpose of the subheading. However, comfort dictates selecting a cautiously neutral subheading. A different choice has been made by weighing this cautious neutrality of the subheading against a less consensual approach. Indeed, the subtitle uses a word which, in recent years, has gradually become taboo in the academic sphere and beyond, like many other words, incidentally. This sulphurous word is “competition”. Yet, whether one likes the word or not, it exists. Indeed, there is de facto a global competition among universities to attract the best students, the best professors and the best academic leaders. Even if it existed in less visible forms before, the publication of the first Shanghai ranking in 2003 gave this competition a planetary impetus. Moreover, even if some have global objectives, universities contribute to and are part of the countries where they are established. Noting the absence or surprised by the weak positioning of some of their academic institutions in international rankings, several countries have initiated policies to remedy this situation. These actions give a geopolitical and even a strategic dimension to State policy in academic affairs. “Worldwide academic competition and geopolitics” specifies the relationship between universities and civilizations that I try to address in this work, where a sketch of the dynamics in force and of the variations of amplitudes is drawn, thanks to an analysis of world universities rankings over time. May this analysis also serve to shed light on the understanding of State policy in university matters.

      The (methodical) reader traditionally begins a book by reading the preface. However, the preface, as is the case here, is often the last thing the author writes (before getting down to the “polishing” of the text and the editorial discussions). He explains certain choices, sets out his final thoughts and shares his more or less melancholy questions about what will happen next, as an existential void begins to appear.

Before the Foreword, which Jamil Salmi did me the honor of writing, the book opens with a quotation. This quote by Paul Morand would be more than enough to answer what comes “after”. However, it touches on a more substantial personal plan. It reflects, for example, what led me to accept responsibilities outside of France, positions where I could act, build and forge, whereas such opportunities in my native country would (at least at the time) have required too much time, taken on too bland forms, and been subject to too many hazards. Then, from there, to expose myself with curiosity to very varied ways of thinking and realities, expressed in multiple languages in many countries on different continents. This “elsewhere” gives an understanding and a life experience for which I am grateful. Not only because it feeds into this book. To me, “elsewhere” is more beautiful than “tomorrow” but has never meant that “yesterday” was to be banished, let alone to forget the country where I was born, and in which I participate. At the opposite end of the contemporary spectrum – the paradoxical (and often little-known) result of globalization’s encounter with Karl Marx – I am not a citizen of the world, just as no one else is. Some people claim that, that’s all. By talking about important phenomena in countries that are beacons of civilizations, by talking about the dynamism of some and the weaknesses or inconsistencies of others, by showing what is happening elsewhere, how it is happening and with what impact, this book also revolves around France¹.

What will happen after this book? Maybe this work will be taken up again someday. The first way of revising this book would of course be to update the chapters. The second way, compatible with the first and favored by the “modular” architecture of the book, would be to add new chapters focusing on certain countries that are not fully covered here, or on certain civilizations. In this case, a balance would have to be found between priority and temptation. Indeed, civilizations and their flagship countries (in a sense that will be given below), or their important countries, are neither equally prioritized in general, nor equally tempting to me in particular. In the event of a divergence between the intensities of the two notions – a tempting, but not priority country versus a priority country, but less tempting – I will probably give nature its rights and thus give temptation primacy over priority. A third way would be to take certain footnotes or incisions and promote them as new chapters, or even new books. Topics are indeed abundant. It would be useful to carry out studies – some of them comparative – on university financing models and the related issue of student debt²; on the societal impact and global trends of universities focused on the transmission of knowledge, and not on its creation; on thematic rankings of leading universities, particularly by looking at countries that heavily invest in deep learning technologies, artificial intelligence and data storage capacities; on national university systems³ (where a number of small countries would probably do well, if not very well); on the evaluation and accreditation of university and research structures (a separate but related topic from the one we are dealing with here); and on the challenge that the reader will discover at the end of this book.

      We shall see.

      Whatever happens, from the summer of 2019, with its alternating heat waves and torrential downpours, to the coronavirus in the spring of 2020, the fine-tuning of this book has been carried out with enthusiasm and without any melancholy. My marriage to Anna in Normandy had a lot to do with it.

      Barneville – LUXEMBOURG

      August 2020

      Acknowledgements

      In 2016, I had the privilege of taking a sabbatical year after 10 years in top management at the University of Luxembourg (UL). This was a perfect time to take a step back (literally and figuratively, although I remained responsible for the UL international rankings) and risks (figuratively only). Specifically, I strongly wished to move out of both the thematic comfort sphere and the civilizational and cultural sphere. Taking a deep breath of fresh air and discovering what I didn’t know yet – but had long been tempted by – led me to spend about three months at the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), then almost nine months at the Peter the Great Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University (Polytech) in Russia.

      As I gradually came to understand the operating system of the EIB and the EIF, discussions with my contacts on the projects of these institutions taught me to think more holistically than I had done up to then. These exchanges also fostered the desire to structure disparate reflections on higher education and research in a broad framework. May those who made this stay possible and nurtured these discussions find the expression of my gratitude here, notably Henry von Blumenthal, Guy Clausse, Jacques Darcy, Rémy Jacob, Francisco de Paula Coelho, Fulceri Bruni Roccia, Bruno Rossignol and Marjut Santoni.

I left the world of European finance in the spring of 2016 to join the world of Russian universities. I had the chance to be a Guest Professor and Senior Advisor to the Rector of Polytech, at a time when this institution was strongly developing its national visibility thanks to the 5-100 excellence program. This stay made it possible to complete certain scientific work that had been neglected. It also provided an in vivo experience of Russian academic life. This was made possible through the following people, whom I would like to thank wholeheartedly: Andrei Rudskoy, Rector of Polytech, Dmitry Arseniev, his Vice-Rector in charge of international relations, Vyacheslav Shkodyrev, Tetiana Kovalenko, Elena Selivanova, Nikita Golovin, Yuri Klutchkoi, and the Polytech strategic planning office team.

      More generally, I am indebted to the representatives of Russian higher education and research institutions for the countless discussions that have sharpened my understanding of the national academic system and the 5-100 excellence program. In particular, Alexander Shestakov, Rector of South Ural State University (one of the 21 universities in the program), Andrey Radionov, Vice-Rector, and Gleb Radchenko, Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science, helped me to understand the impact and importance of the Russian excellence program for their university located in an industrial region, far from Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Their insights were incomparably useful. I thank them warmly for this.

During the 2018–2019 academic year, the opportunity arose to contribute to the work of the expertise and consultancy mission (mission expertise et conseil – MEC) of the DGESIP¹ of the French Ministry of Higher Education,