The Royal Society of Edinburgh The Science of Improvement: Why Scotland Needs its Public Intellectuals Professor C Duncan

Rice FRSE, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of Aberdeen 1 November 2007 Scotlands universities have been both home to and the embodiment of the public intellectual since the time of the Scottish Enlightenment. Indeed, Professor C Duncan Rice argues, he couldnt talk about public intellectuals without examining the wider questions of what our universities are for. While seeking the answers in this RSE lecture, he outlines stimulating ideas for creating environments where public intellectualism thrives, to the benefit of Scotland as a whole. What sort of graduates should our universities be sending out? Should they be well-trained individuals, able to compete in the jobs market and meet the needs of industry? Or should they also be prepared for citizenship, as ready to grapple with the ethical issues of the day as they are to appreciate a fine piece of writing or beautiful music? And how should these universities be funded? By the state, by fees or through the benevolence of philanthropists - or in an entirely new business-inspired way? And how, just how, will Scottish universities garner the finances they need to compete on a world stage when Government cannot possibly fund them at that level with so many other competing demands on the public purse? These are some of the questions which Professor C Duncan Rice attempts to address under the umbrella of a lecture on public intellectuals. Thats not to say he doesnt make a good attempt at defining public intellectualism and, indeed, name a few candidates, both in universities and outwith academia. But his talk takes in much broader territory than that. Indeed, he says he wouldnt be able to talk about public intellectuals without straying into the wider question of what Scotlands universities are for. Professor Rice defines public intellectuals in several ways. There are the individual public intellectuals - the Noam Chomskys of this world, who are well-known cultural commentators and influencers. They are those, he said, to whom society looks to bring intellectual leadership and criticism to the political process. His view, however, is that public intellectualism is a broader church than that. Just as in the Scottish Enlightenment, where highly literate citizens considered themselves to be working on the science of improvement for the benefit of society, the modern public intellectual isnt to be found solely in universities. Having said that, his talk concentrated on university-based public intellectuals, whose reach extends beyond teaching and research, important though these activities are. He can name several, some with strong links to Aberdeen, such as the microbiologist Hugh Pennington, who not only comments regularly in the media on issues such as E.coli but has also advised government on the same. Or Tom Devine, the eminent historian and well-known writer who was previously at Aberdeen but has now moved to Edinburgh University. In Professor Rices view, it would matter a great deal if university-based public intellectuals disappeared and he went so far as to say they were essential to the functioning of democratic society. Public intellectuals are also one of the reasons that universities themselves matter. Universities are important to Scotland, he says, not only because they provide competent technicians and up-todate scientific advice, but because the Professoriate can help inform public debate - ideally helping discussion on important issues not to descend into popular spats. In other words, universities are a good source of public intellectuals. But as well as being considered the natural home of public intellectuals, universities share their fundamental role of creating and transferring knowledge. He believes the success of universities defines the health of society, but that in order to do this, it is essential to understand what a university does and how it is best able to function. Successive governments in Scotland have shared broad aims for universities, including achieving excellence, widening access and driving the social and economic enrichment of Scotland. While Professor Rice sees these aims as excellent, he has concerns about how universities are supposed to achieve them. He also has concerns about whether we appreciate what makes a great university and the extent of the challenge from around the world. He fears that our concept of universities is

overly utilitarian and that many valuable characteristics - such as the public intellectual role - can be lost. Research is, of course, important, and Professor Rice believes the Research Assessment Exercise, which attempts to measure the output of university departments, has helped to increase scholarly output. But the RAE has, he believes, focused academic scholarship towards the specialist journals, while not rewarding what could be called public intellectual activity. Indeed, he finds it sad that academics have less space and incentives to create and think - and fulfil the functions of public intellectuals. Professor Rice believes that being a corporate public intellectual and a home for individual public intellectuals is one of the most fundamental roles of a university. He argues that the transfer of knowledge must include cultural contributions. Our fixation on technological and economic output confuses our fundamental role, just as the desire for job-ready graduates risks overlooking the fact that what really matters is that graduates have the capacity to learn new skills when the technology or particular industry moves on, quite apart from the analytic capacity needed for citizenship. He would also like to see graduates given broader skills in analysis, in arts appreciation and in dealing with the ethical issues of the day. In other words, universities should be looking at the whole student for the benefit of the society they will be part of. Scottish universities are operating in a competitive world, where the top 50 higher education institutions are dominated by America, where there is a fees regime and a culture of philanthropic giving. There is simply more money around to create quality, he says, adding that the rise of universities in the Far East, Middle East and China is also striking. To compete, Scottish universities must be able to recruit and retain the best staff and the best students from around the world, offer top-class facilities, great teaching and research and pay academics competitively. Getting to that point will, he believes, require rethinking our approach to universities in Scotland. Funding is important and Professor Rice believes that this must come from a number of sources, including the state and private philanthropy. He also believes that the issue of charging fees cannot be ignored but accepts there is no political support for this in Scotland.He also wants a greater differentiation between Scottish universities as it is not realistic to expect that all can be internationally competitive in the same ways. Universities are autonomous institutions, not arms of the state, and he has often thought that lessons could be taken from the business world. For example, Boeing has contracts stipulating obligations (within statute) to the US government, but is otherwise free to go about its business as it sees fit. If universities followed this model, they would be free to attract as many students as they wanted and to take on borrowing as appropriate. He also wants better leadership, saying that the work of colleagues who are public intellectuals should be encouraged. This means supporting blue skies research and teaching of the liberal arts, not because the state gives incentives to do so but because these are the things that great universities do. In summary, Professor Rice believes that, along with their utilitarian function, the capacity of universities to provide wisdom for Scotland, through research, education and the outreach of its public intellectuals, provides an overwhelming case for every Scottish citizen to support funding for universities. How that is achieved, he says, is an argument for another day. Questions The event attracted a distinguished audience. At least one of the public intellectuals mentioned by Professor Rice attended (Sunday Herald journalist Alan Taylor) while questioners ranged from academia (including a former principal of Strathclyde University and a Professor of linguistics) to a representative of UNESCO, a politician, a recent graduate from Aberdeen University and a selfconfessed punter. Questions covered topics including Professor Rices overhaul of the Aberdeen University curriculum. He made the point that universities should not rest on their laurels but should reexamine all they do at regular intervals. He also regretted the passing of the Scottish general MA, saying it was a comprehensive and magnificent degree which had been the model for the American system. Sadly the rush to specialisation had robbed us of this jewel in the crown.

There was some debate around the benefits of different approaches to university funding across the world. In particular, the former Labour MEP, now Solidarity politician, Hugh Kerr praised the Scandinavian model. Professor Rice said he had been successful in attracting academics from universities across the world, including some in Scandinavia and concluded that every system probably had its benefits and disadvantages. Jennifer Trueland Opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the RSE, nor of its Fellows